Do Calvinists Believe God is the Author of Evil?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 12 июн 2018
- Dr. Leighton Flowers, Director of Evangelism and Apologetics for Texas Baptists, addresses an article written by a Calvinistic author regarding "the 12 myths about Calvinism," which can be seen here:
credohouse.org/blog/12-myths-...
This is part 3 of 12 in the series and Dr. Flowers looks at the logical consistency of Calvinists who claim God is not the author of evil while maintaining a view of deterministic sovereignty. The series can be found here: • 12 Myths About Calvini...
For more on this topic please visit www.soteriology101.com
To SUPPORT this ministry please go here: soteriology101.com/support/
i like this "bite sized" videos haha. Much easier to watch over my lunch break! Thanks, Dr. Flowers!
I cannot see how, if you believe that God ordered and ordained everything down to the least rogue molecule, that you cannot, or do not, cite God as being the author of evil, and the primary drive behind man's desire to sin. And throwing your hands up and saying "it's a mystery" is just academic laziness.
In Calvinism, the reason we sin is because of our own desire to sin, so we freely choose to sin. But, all good things we do are because God fixed our hearts. Pretty simple actually, a lack of God causes evil, having God creates goodness itself. This probably angers you if you are desperate to take responsible for your good deeds, but truly God is the author of all the good things you have done.
@@charles21137 So a being created in God's image and likeness cannot do good deeds? Also, there is no free will in Calvinism.
Calvanism is evil not God.
I really like the shorter format. I think most people can easily set aside half an hour so hopefully this content will reach more people.
the dilemma of the present age. Discuss deep life issues but try and keep it under 25 mins, but sit and watch a football game for 3 hours.
If the content is good I can easily listen for a couple hours. It's all about the content.
"So hopefully you understand that." - Dr. Leighton Flowers
You're the best sir!
This is one of the top 10 videos to watch on Leighton’s channel
the last 3-4 minutes of this video are some of the best minutes of anything i've seen.
Love that point.. Even if they are affirming God’s universal love, it’s hardly the biblical definition of love. So true.
I appreciate that there are those on the opposite side of this debate trying to be a visible voice! So far the noise has been coming largely from one side and people need to be informed of the other views.
Excellent video, as usual. Thank you.
I struggle calling a Calvinist a brother in The Lord. I don’t know how you can to be honest. We got a different Jesus. One died for all (2 Corinthians 5:14-15) and one only died for some. Too many illogical inconsistencies and too much hints of Gnosticism. We should try to present the facts and be gentle but they are pretty set that TULIP is the gospel and if you don’t believe it you’re believing a different gospel. Again, I don’t know how you can call a Calvinist a brother. If you can provide an answer for this let me know.
@Michael MMA I just finished reading the first volume of the early Church Fathers writings. After reading Irenaeus combat the Gnostic sects in his book 'Against Heresies' I am convinced that Calvinism is modern day Gnosticism. The way Irenaeus describes the gnostic beliefs sounds literally identical with the Calvinism. If you don't know who the early church fathers were, they are the men who learned directly from the Apostles and passed on the doctrines of the Apostles to the churches. Irenaeus learned under Polycarp and Polycarp learned directly from the Apostle John. For 300 years the early church believed the same things. They had unity and one mind in all things. Everything started to get twisted and confused when Augustine came on the scene. Go read the Ante-Nicene Fathers and study early church history. We gotta get back to our roots. All this confusion can be settled if we read the early writings. God bless
They still believe Jesus died for our sins and rose from the dead. That's the important part. I know Calvinists who clearly believe and show the fruit of the Spirit in their lives. That said, some of these beliefs are terribly harmful and should be fought against.
yeah well Leighton also calls known heretics like Michael Brown "brothers in Christ"... Leighton too ecumenical, what next?? a shout out to our dear brother and substitute of Christ on earth Pope Francis!? sheesh, what heresy abounds these days...
One reason to be charitable and generous (in terms of regarding them as brothers in Christ) is that most of them appear to be quiet unaware of the gaping contradiction at the heart of their theology. They're in error, but they're innocently in error.
@danieltemelkovski9828 Sometimes. Many are hard-hearted and Calvinism appeals to their unloving tendencies. The ones who are “innocent,” are only ignorant like Job’s friends before they were rebuked by God himself for saying things about Him that were not true. If they fail to repent when confronted with the truth, woe to them.
There is a difference between ignorance and innocence, which only God can parse. Paul knew he was shown mercy because of his ignorance, but he didn’t view himself as innocent - he viewed himself as among the worst of sinners, yet saved by grace.
It was explained to me by a fervent Calvinist this way. Everything you do is pre-destined BUT you are held responsible for your sins committed. ????? Got flat footed by that one and left speechless. This was also in my very early time of returning to God. Is it me or is this statement way off the rails?? WoW !!!
It isn't you...
kukak bear he should. But if he causes them to sin in the first place as this Calvinist appears to say that is something else entirely. How is can a just God do that?
If a judge causes an act he is doubly culpable if he passes judgment on the one he causes to act.
Saying you don't believe something that directly follows from another belief you have is inconsistent. It makes no logical sense.
Baltic Hammer
It accuses God of extreme injustice, but hides the accusation behind assertions of piety.
kukak bear
If God MADE them sin because HE _wanted_ them to sin, that is _not the same_ as Him holding then accountable when He did not want them to sin or make them sin. Do you not see the difference?
Baltic Hammer that’s hyper Calvinism which is unbiblical. God did not predestine your every move. He does not predestine men to rape children . To say such a thing is blasphemy!
As a visual learner it would be helpful to see a poster with information like this.
Nicely done
Can someone provide a link to the Piper quote displayed at ~20 min mark?
This is excellent...
Dr. Flowers, did you verify that first quote by Calvin?
21:00 mark awsome point
I like how Geisler says it. "Every moral act is an act of free will."
And the Bible could not be clearer that acts taken by characters in the Bible include *moral acts* - so those acts must be acts of free will.
@@jamesmc04 Can you please explain your definition of free will?
How would immoral acts be defined?
Good Job, Leighton. I am not a Baptist and I am certain you and I disagree on a lot of theological issues, but I got to say this is a well thought out presentation. I am impressed by the care you take to not to misrepresent the views of those who disagree with your views and are on the other side of the debate on this issue. I was under the impression that most Baptists were Calvinist and had grown out of the Reformed Movement. I think of people like James White. I guess I might be wrong since you are not Calvinist and describe yourself as a Southern Baptist.
Go on
I think, in the cases maybe of Calvin but especially of Augustine, we would do well to define "evil." I can't speak for neither of them, but I do know that, in the Hebrew Bible, "evil" to the ancient Israelite does not always equate to "evil" as we might understand it. The word could mean just that (evil, as in idolatrous, demonic, etc.), but it also was used in the sense of calamity, destruction, chaos, etc.
Here's a biblical example of it used in that latter sense, when God is warning the people of Judah of their coming destruction if they do not repent:
_“So now then, say, please, to the people of Judah and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying, ‘Thus says Yahweh, “Look, I am preparing evil against you, and I am planning a plan against you. Please turn back, each one from his evil way, and walk rightly in your ways and your deeds.”’_ (Jer 18:11 LEB)
In the sense of evil that we use, I am in agreement that God is not and cannot be the author of evil. But I also know that evil could mean different things in the Bible itself, and I want us to be fair to the likes of Augustine and Calvin, try to define the terms as they did, so as to know what they're actually saying.
I just don't like the idea of being called a Calvinist or Ameneanist, we should not call ourselves after the theologies of men..we are Christians we belong to CHRIST..let's not call ourselves after mens Doctrines and philosophies..
Trust the doctrines of men or the doctrine of He that saved me? Palms 118:8 it is better to trust in the Lord than put confidence in man. I’ll go with the Lord.
Do others really believe that God is constantly surprised by events and caught off guard? I prefer a God in control of everything that goes on- which is what we have.
Some do, and some do not. Some have this little "LALA land" that they put between the thing and its obvious consequences.
Technically no they wouldn't claim that, however I think the logical conclusions of what they do believe leaves no other option. It seems these myths are all things they deny and reject the logical implications and instead appeal to mystery on how it works exactly.
This question is making me question calvinism too :/
Where do you stand 2 years later?
@@watertower1 Still undecided and researching more. At this point molinism seems the most attractive to me but Idk
@@bridgetgolubinski gotcha, thanks for the response, for me Calvinism seems so harsh. Like God just chose who to save based on nothing? Idk doesn’t make sense to me.
@@watertower1 What does the word “all” mean?
Colossians 1:16-20 “For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;
20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.
@@mattyounts9400 I’ll take your bait. What’s your point? God’s Word is plain and it is limited by the whole counsel of God. Any scripture in isolation can be twisted, but the whole counsel of God clearly defines the word ‘all’. God’s Word shows how God uses the word ‘all’, and I can guide you to applicable clarifications. So, what’s your point?
I’m a Calvinist and never have I heard a Calvinists say God authored evil. The Bible starts with evil already present. This assumption is like saying God authored evil so that man would have free will to choose other than God .
Dr. Flowers, if you’d kindly download your brain into mine, so that I’d be better prepared to call out these issues in Calvinism with my local brothers in Christ, that’d be great.
In the meantime, I’ll keep watching. God bless you, brother.
The problem with the "author of evil" phrase is that it is an analogy, and it isn't always clear what parts of the analogy are meant to be in view or why it would be wrong to be an author of evil. For example, sometimes people try to use that analogy to say that God should be seen as the sinner for authoring sin, yet no one is calling for the arrest of William Shakespeare, Victor Hugo, Stephen King or any other author for the evils they authored. Others use the phrase as a stand in for fatalism, which only works as long as the accuser remains vague in their accusation since no Christian belief system is fatalistic. Still others, perhaps the majority I've encountered, use it to appeal to the emotions and so discredit their opposition, but when you actually examine what they themselves believe, they are open to the same accusations as well. The ambiguity protects them from their hypocrisy. Finally, it's also not clear if the phrase held the same meaning for Christians 500 years ago as it does for us today.
I think the phrase should be dropped, and whatever accusation is being made should be made clearly.
oracleoftroy author - originator of a plan or idea.
Is God the originator of a plan or idea that Satan should rebel and Adam and Eve should sin?
OR, is Satan the originator of his own rebellion, separate and contradictory to Gods plan, and, were Adam and Eve the originators of their own disobedience, bringing them under sin?
Let’s be clear here... the question is NOT ‘did God know Satan would rebel and Adam and Eve would disobey’, the question is ‘did God plan Satan to rebel and Adam and Eve to sin’.
The English language is not nearly as difficult as you make it out to be.
And the other problem is that, even if God isn't the "author" of evil, he still holds people responsible for the evil he unconditionally causes them to commit.
@@jaygee2187 well said.
At first I disagreed with your assessment of the pro choice vs pro abortion thing. Everyone on that side I've heard has talked about bodily autonomy and I've never heard anyone suggest anything like a mandatory abortion under an circumstances so I think pro choice is more accurate a description then pro abortion.
However I see what you mean that one who defends the right to have an abortion does imply that abortion is not wrong.
So Calvinistic God is pro life and pro choice at the same time ???confused
Read C S Lewis' "Mere Christianity" best explaination
24:35 the reason it doesn't is because it is the CIA that does all of those things, not cops committing entrapment
Nether a Calvenist or Aerminian I follow scripture not a man. So what does scripture say: Forming light, and preparing darkness, Making peace, and preparing evil, I [am] Jehovah, doing all these things.’ YLT Isaiah 45.7. Simular in KJV. - Perverted in the Westcote and Hort Scripture.
It's not what they believe, it's the implication of what they teach. Or as the Bible reads it's not the tree, but the fruit of the tree that shows what kind of tree it is.
With the growing popularity of Calvinism and the many voices opposing this doctrine, there is one argument I have not seen presented at any time. It is this -
There are two gods who are influencing our understanding of the Scriptures - the god of this world and the God of creation. The god of this world is a deceiver and liar. He blinds the eyes of the unconverted to the glory of the Gospel. The God of creation is infinite in love, rich in mercy and grace, and kind in all His deeds
The Bible says that Jesus is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. The grace of God has appeared bringing Salvation to all men. God desires that all come to repentance and that Salvation has come to all men. The Bible states repeatedly that whosoever will may come.
And yet, the Calvinist says that God effectually calls only the elect and that the atonement is only effective for the elect. Now, which of these two views would the deceiver, the father of lies support? Would he want Christians to believe that God loves all His fallen creation and that Jesus died for all, or would he want Christians to believe that God only loves a very small percentage of His fallen creation and that only those few are chosen to believe?
Calvinism is an attack on God’s character and isn’t this what the god of this world delights in doing?
Anyone who thinks that the god of this world is asleep on the sidelines and is not actively influencing our understanding of Scripture is delusional.
Is it possible that I have been deceived into believing that God loves all sinners and that Jesus died for all?
Chris Mabe, I have already explained why Calvinism is an attack on God’s character but I will repeat my reasons - pay attention.
God’s essence is love, He cannot help but love all individuals because He is infinite in His love. The Calvinist says God does not love everyone.
The Bible teaches that Jesus is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world and that God is now declaring that Salvation has come to all men. The Calvinist says that Salvation only comes to the elect.
The Bible teaches consistently that all may come, and, in fact, God desires that all come to repentance and He is not willing that any should perish. Calvinism teaches that God’s Grace is irresistible only to the elect.
The Bible teaches that God is kind in all His deeds. Calvinism teaches that God, in His sovereignty, determines all that happens, including all evil.
What a contradiction to believe that God, as a God of love, chooses or 'passes over' the majority of His fallen creation such that they are doomed and end up in hell.
Right Doctrine, stick and stones …
While you may consider yourself right doctrine you certainly can’t write a meaningful sentence - what is meant by, ‘Since you still is mabe ...’?
I have noticed that Calvinists often revert to insulting comments when they are unable to Biblically support their view.
Chris Mabe, according to Arthur Pink - “When we say that God is sovereign in the exercise of His love, we mean that He loves whom He chooses. God does not love everybody”.
Pink is an honest Calvinist because he understands that the vast majority of God’s fallen creation will not be given an opportunity to repent. You can’t say you love someone and then condemn them to hell.
It is true that God hates the wicked, however, because God also loves His fallen creation with such amazing love, he sent His son to die in the place of the wicked so that should they recognise that they need a Saviour, repent and accept the free gift of Salvation, they will no longer be wicked.
Chris Mabe, do you honestly believe God loves all sinners the same and then condemns the vast majority to hell?
While Jesus died for all sinners, the fact is, not all sinners repent. Many sinners do repent and so it is not unusual to say that Jesus died for many.
“Reformed Theology also teaches that the Lord wants all to come to repentance and doesn’t want any to perish”
How can you make this claim with a ‘straight face’? Even John Piper says, “It is possible that careful interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:4 would lead us to believe that God’s desire for all people to be saved does not refer to every individual person in the world, but rather to all sorts of people”.
To state that Reformed Theology teaches that everything in the Bible is true and does a better job of harmonizing the Word than most other systems, is laughable. Reformed Theology says only the elect can be saved; the Bible says that the grace of God has appeared bringing Salvation to all men. And many such verses can be quoted confirming this great Biblical truth.
Would you say that I am being deceived by declaring that God loves all sinners and that Jesus died for all?
Theres no need to sugar coat things. We can be respectful while calling evil out. Calvinism is comparable to abortion.
ehhh that's a bit extreme
@@ninjason57 literally nothing extreme about it. The logical conclusion of calvinism itself (not necessarily what all calvinists believe but the belief system itself does indeed lead here logically) is that the christian god does not love all humans. Yhwh desires for and ensures that many of them will defy his call to repentance and wants them to go to hell and suffer until annihilation / for eternity (depending on which u believe). There is a very pungent "you are unwanted and need to be destroyed as a result" theme there. That meshes very neatly with the overt "you are unwanted and need to be destroyed" theme that fuels the pro-abortion perspective.
God ordains all things that come to pass
God
1. Is not the author of sin
2. Has no fellowship with any element of sin
Can you please provide your definition of “all”?
Colossians 1:16-20 “For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;
20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.
When we are born we share traits - visible and behavioural - of our parents because it's in the genes. Sometimes genetic mutations randomly occur and people are born blind. These are both secondary causes. God is the creator of blindness as well as evil in the sense that he is the creator of all things and nothing would exist - including them - without Him, for in Him all things consist. This does not mean that He unilaterally creates these things on purpose... decides to make you look like your parents in the womb (you do by natural processes which God has set in motion and upholds anyway), or decides to create a disabled child. They are secondary causes via creatures within a fallen world. Likewise God Is Not determining soldiers to rape poor women and kill children in Ukraine right now... that's just utter unnesessary whack. God is not above the holy, righteous and good Law... the law which reflects Who He is... the God Who is light, love and perfection, Who humbled Himself and, via the events that He had predetermined and foresaw, took all the iniquitous tragedy and all the darkness and every demonic fury upon and into Himself upon the cross, in order, as the perfect offering, to fulfill the law, disarm all evil, reverse the curse and destroyed death itself - which held us in its power - by his very own death.
He didn't come to set the captives free from, and free us from the wrathful consequences of, all powers that he was ultimately determining (making happen) in the first place... He, in love, relationally came to restore us and free us from powers that he had given a very real degree of sovereignty to in the first place. What He determines to do... who can resist ? No One ! But He also gives His creation a degree of room to go its own way... or not X
Who cares what calvinist think. Just read the Bible for yourself and do your own thinking.
It appears that this 12 Myths piece is nothing short of an _honest_ attempt to define each of the characteristics of "Calvinism" somewhere short of their _logical conclusions_ . It is like trying to define the structure full of water in my backyard as something _short_ of a swimming pool... Yes it is filled with water and people swim in it _but_ not between October and May so the majority of the time it is covered and not in use. Yes it has a pump and a filter but many unfilterable items are dispersed in the water at any given time. Yes it has a deck and there are many swimming floaties around the deck... but people are not always using them and sometimes the floaties are _under_ the deck.... His arguments are non-sense...simply cutting the definitions short of their logical conclusion does NOT bypass the truth! It's a systematic that makes God a monster no matter where you cut the conclusion off and that thing in my backyard is a pool!
inTruthbyGrace
It's like the Westminster Confession: God makes everything happen that happens, including evil, 'but not in such a way that makes Him the author of sin'. A cheap disclaimer tacked on at the end does not change the implications of the basic principle!
The only argument I've heard from Calvinists as God NOT being the 'Author of Sin', is basically, 'Because we said so'.
They keep all their premises:
God meticulously preordaining every subatomic particle, human thought, and choice via His immutable decree, for there is no Libertarian Free Will, and then DENY the logical conclusion of their premises by accepting a conclusion of their own creation. The Westminsters confession ends this premise of theirs with, "yet, God is not the Author of sin", without a valid, logical argument to justify their conclusion.
That doesn't work. No one can set up a premise, and then deny the logical conclusion without AN ARGUMENT, simply by saying THAT'S not the conclusion they adhere to.
This is the 'nail in the coffin', that seals this dead theology 6 feet under where it belongs.
C C Wrong, again.
How can they not believe it?! If you are consistent, you can't escape this conclusion. Calvin taught Adam had no choice but to eat from the tree, because it was God's sovereign (their favorite word) decree.
Calvinists contradict themselves and there is DOUBLE TALK in regards to whether or not God is the author of sin and evil.
1) "The sovereignty of God also teaches THAT GOD IS NOT THE RESPONSIBLE AUTHOR OF EVIL, that man is a free moral agent who is not forced to sin and who is responsible for what he does." - Grover E. Gunn, in his book, "The Doctrines of Grace", 1987, page 14.
2) "GOD IS NEITHER THE AUTHOR OF SIN, NOR SANCTIONS IT (APPROVES IF IT). HE IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR SIN, THOUGH HE DECREED IT. Those guilty of sinning are responsible." - Jay Adams, in his book, "The Grand Demonstration", page 61, 1991.
3) "God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby NEITHER IS GOD THE AUTHOR OF SIN...." - Westminster Confession of Faith, III "Of God's Eternal Decree", item #1
4) Westminster Confession of Faith, V. "Of Providence", Item# 4 bottom paragraph it states...."as the sinfulness thereof proceedeth only from the creature, and NOT FROM GOD, WHO, BEING MOST HOLY AND RIGHTEOUS, NEITHER IS NOR CAN BE THE AUTHOR OR APPROVER OF SIN."
5) The London Confession of Faith, Chapter 5, Of Divine Providence, #4 - The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God, so far manifest themselves in his providence, that his determinate counsel extendeth itself even to the first fall, and all other sinful actions both of angels and men; and that not by a bare permission, which also he most wisely and powerfully boundeth, and otherwise ordereth and governeth, in a manifold dispensation to his most holy ends; yet so, as the sinfulness of their acts proceedeth only from the creatures, and NOT FROM GOD, WHO, BEING MOST HOLY AND RIGHTEOUS, NEITHER IS NOR CAN BE THE AUTHOR OR APPROVER OF SIN."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BUT HOWEVER, you have the below following eminent Calvinist apologists and John Calvin himself making totally contradictory statements that is not in line with what is asserted by Grover E. Gunn and Jay Adams who are both Calvinists as well and the Westminster Confession of Faith, and the London Confession of Faith.
1) Loraine Boettner - "Even the fall of Adam, and through him the fall of the race, was not by chance or accident, but was so ordained in the secret counsels of God" - In his book, "The Reformed doctrine of Predestination, page 234
2) Jerom Sanchius - "Surely, if God had not willed the fall, He could, and no doubt would, have prevented it; but He did not prevent it: ergo, HE WILLED IT. AND IF HE WILLED IT, HE CERTAINLY DECREED IT." - In his book, "The Doctrine of Absolute Predestination" page 88.
3) A.W. Pink - "Plainly it was God's will that sin should enter this world, otherwise it would not have entered, for nothing happens save as God has eternally decreed. Moreover, there was more than a bare permission, for God only permits that which He has purposed." In his book, "The Sovereignty of God" page 147, (1961).
4) A.W. Pink - "Not only did His omniscient eye see Adam eating of the forbidden fruit, BUT HE DECREED BEFOREHAND THAT HE SHOULD DO SO." In his book, "The Sovereignty of God" page 249
5) Edwin Palmer - "IT IS EVEN BIBLICAL TO SAY THAT GOD HAS FOREORDAINED SIN. If sin was outside the plan of God, then not a single important affair of life would be ruled by God." In his book, "The 5 Points of Calvinism" page 82
6) Edwin Palmer - "All things that happen in all the world at any time and in all history-whether with inorganic matter, vegetation, animals, man, or angels (both the good and evil ones)-come to pass because God ordained them. EVEN SIN -- THE FALL OF THE DEVIL FROM HEAVEN, THE FALL OF ADAM, AND EVERY EVIL THOUGHT, WORD, AND DEED IN ALL OF HISTORY, INCLUDING THE WORST SIN OF ALL, Judas’ betrayal of Christ-is included in the eternal decree of our holy God." - page 120, Edwin Palmer - in his book, "The 5 Points of Calvinism".
7) Edwin Palmer - "SIN IS NOT ONLY FOREKNOWN BY GOD, IT IS ALSO FOREORDAINED BY GOD" - On page 122, 1980 in his book, ""The 5 Points of Calvinism".
8) William Shedd - "Nothing comes to pass contrary to his desire. Nothing happens by chance. Even moral evil, which He abhors and forbids, occurs "by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God." In his book, "Calvinism: Pure and Mixed, page 37, 1986.
9) J. Gresham Machen - "All things including even the wicked actions of wicked men and devils -- are brought to pass in accordance with God's eternal purpose." In his book, "Christian View of Man, page 46, 1965.
10) William Shedd - "Sin is one of the "whatsoevers" that have "come to pass", all of which are "ordained". In his book, "Calvinism" Pure and Mixed, page 31, 1986
Finally we have JOHN CALVIN:
John Calvin falsely taught that God is the author of sin and evil.
1) "Thieves and murderers, and other evildoers, are instruments of divine providence, being employed by the Lord himself to execute judgments which he has resolved to inflict." From Calvin's "Institutes of the Christian Religion" - Book 1, Chapter 17, Paragraph 5.
2) "The devil, and the whole train of the ungodly, are in all directions, held in by the hand of God as with a bridle, so that they can neither conceive any mischief, nor plan what they have conceived, nor how muchsoever they may have planned, move a single finger to perpetrate, unless in so far as he permits, NAY UNLESS IN SO FAR AS HE COMMANDS, THAT THEY ARE NOT ONLY BOUND BY HIS FETTERS BUT ARE EVEN FORCED TO DO HIM SERVICE." - John Calvin - Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 17, Paragraph 11.
3) "I admit that in this miserable condition wherein men are now bound, all of Adam's children have FALLEN BY GOD'S WILL." - John Calvin - Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 4.
4) "The first man fell because THE LORD DEEMED IT MEET THAT HE SHOULD." - John Calvin - Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter, 23, Paragraph 8.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MY comment - The above is what I call DOUBLE TALK where Calvinists say 2 different things out of their mouths contradicting themselves.
You need to define evil. It has different meanings. Need to make sure you are always talking about the same type of evil, whether it's moral evil or evil such as calamity, trouble, etc.
Calvinism and Arminianism preach God is the author of confusion. Not the gospel. First Corinthians 15:1-4. Romans 3:26-28. For He is the just and the justifier of them that BELIEVE in Jesus. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? By the law of works? Nay, but by the law of FAITH. Therefore we conclude a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.
Galatians 1:6-9 Though we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you, than ye have received from us, 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.
The Gospel. First Corinthians 15:3-4. That Christ died for our sins, according to the scriptures, that He was buried and rose again on the third day, according to the scriptures.
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. John 3:16-18. Romans 6:23 For the penalty for sin is death, BUT, THE GIFT OF GOD IS ETERNAL LIFE, through Jesus finished work on the cross. Jesus paid the debt and set us free.
John 3:18 Believers are no longer condemned, but unbelievers are condemned already, because they have not believed on the name of the Son of God. John 1:12.
First John 5:13. These things have I written unto you that BELIEVE on the name of the Son of God, that ye may KNOW YE HAVE ETERNAL LIFE.
A gift is paid for in advance of the GIFT. Jesus paid it all and we paid 0. Romans 11:6. 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. John 6:40 and John 6:29. John 6:47. God cannot lie.
YESSSS!! I'm binge watching your videos, just found you. New Calvinist, sickened, heart broken but can't look away.. what's been seen can never be unseen 😢😥😣 How can I love this monster God? How do I get back what I once had with Jesus Christ? My entire world view is upside down. I doubt you'll ever see this comment.. I'm listening, please lead me out!😟😣😢🤯😖💔💔💔
I have listened to so many..
John MacArthur
Paul Washer
RC Sproul
Steve Lawson
Todd Friel
Phil Johnson
Jeff Durbin
James White (I watched your debate) he said you didn't exegete Romans 9 properly, please debate again! And please stop quoting NT Wright bc he's highly criticized as being heretical sir. I'm sorry if I'm out of bounds, forgive me. I'm struggling here.. please
V FOR VENDETTA I know how you feel! Although I’m not totally heartbroken as my mind can just not fully comprehend how Calvinists come to their conclusions. But A small part of me is definitely scared of the possibility they’re right. Many of them also admit they were heart broken when they came to the conclusion Calvinism was right. I think that should be our first clue something is wrong. Are you reading your bible everyday? Try to read it from front to back as often as possible. When you read the Bible for its plain meaning I do not think most would come up with the God of Calvinism. It seems you only come up with Calvinism if you thoroughly read and study the church fathers, who were not inerrant. Keep praying and searching and finding alternative voices to give you more perspective. I’ll see if I can tag a couple others who have helped me grasp this issue.
Damon Pulaski Thank you for your reply. I'm devastated. I haven't been able to read my Bible much lately. It keeps pointing out what all the reformers I've been reading about and the Expository Pastors, who all preach Calvinism, say. I can't escape it. It's like once the scales are removed from your eyes, you can see everything! I can't unsee it, I don't know what to do. I don't know what I even believe anymore. (Did "Jesus" really die on the cross? Was it just a middle eastern man claiming to be the messiah like many in those days?) This has NEVER been an issue for me until now. I literally say "God first hated me!" Because, well he does! At first, everything was GREAT, I didn't know I was even learning Calvinism. I LOVED IT. ALL DAY LONG I STUDIED. I couldn't get enough!! I was soooo happy. And then it sunk in, all the bad things about Calvinism. I cry everyday!
I'm so sorry you're going through this. This is a major spiritual battle you are
going through and I will keep you in prayer. Try to remember that we deal not with flesh and blood but spiritual powers. And Satan has it out for you
right now sister and is trying to ruin your relationship with your Lord and
Savior. I don't think the scales have been removed from your eyes. I think
they've been placed on your eyes by Satan. He's been trying His best on me but I was like the prodigal child for many years and now that I'm back and restored I will not be moved and I test everything I hear through His word. I thought I was saved in High School but I was not genuinely saved until about 3 years ago. There were things that were hard for me to understand and I turned to online videos from pastors and theologians for answers. Like you it all sounded great for a while, until I realized what it all actually meant about the character of God. A friend who is reformed actually
introduced me to Calvinism and that's when I realized all the pastors I've been listening to are Calvinists. I became
deeply disturbed and started researching problems with Calvinism to get a
different perspective, as well as reading the bible more. I am convinced that
Calvinism is a tool Satan is using to hurt and disrupt the body of Christ.
That's not to say every Calvinist is evil, many are just deceived. It really is
not biblical and it destroys the faith of many. I am involved in a life group at my baptist church and a few weeks in I discovered the leader was a Calvinist. Although he does not call himself such openly. But the terms he uses and the way he describes God I can tell and we got into a bit of a debate one morning and I'm not sure anyone else really understood where he was coming from. And I worry what it will do and is doing to
the faith of all those in the class who don't realize they are being
indoctrinated by Calvinist interpretation of scripture. That has propelled me
to read and listen even more so that I can be better prepared to defend God,
His word and His character.
I don't know if you have come across any of these video's yet (I'll post one below), but he seems to have a really good handle on how Calvinism has become so mainstream and all their reformed doctrine comes from outside the bible. They create terms and definitions of words and presuppose them onto scripture, twisting them to say what supports their false doctrine. Please don't give up,
and ask God to reveal His truth to you! Cling to Him! Believe in His goodness, love, mercy and long-suffering for all!
GreatIsHis Faithfulness I've been trying. It's really messed me up. Thank you for your heartfelt response. I wish this was a nightmare I could wake up from..
Is45v7
Pelagian!!! 😂😉😘
If you only 99% agree with Mr. White then "you are on the slippery slope to full blown Pelagian"!! Its his signature, his motto, his go-to line.
What we believe is quite different from pelagianism. I've asked an honest question from a couple of people though and not been able to get an answer. I don't know if it's just because they don't know the answer or they're uncomfortable with the controversy the correct answer might bring I'm not really sure. But my question is if what turned into Calvinism started with Augustine. And it wasn't found anywhere in the early church but only among the gnostics that the early church fought against. And Augustine was a former Gnostic before becoming a Christian and then discovering Divine determinism. Then how do calvinists escape the charge of being semi gnostic, at the least? They're teaching of divine determinism and at least three of The Five Points come from Gnostic teaching so I'm really confused how they avoid this or even reconcile in their own mind while holding these beliefs and trying to affirm them as true from the Bible Christian beliefs. I'm open to an answer from anyone I really am curious about this of how logically they're not connected.
This is strictly from my own experience, they avoid any charges by denying them. If someone presses them on an issue/question they don't like, just deny it louder. Having a two-way in-depth exchange of ideas just is not in the playbook. End of discussion!! Actually I don't think most of them could define gnostic anything since they refuse to think about or study topics outside "approved" authors or favorite ministers. Others are paranoid about getting tainted by reading heretical stuff. Bottom line is they don't worry or care about anything that you asked about.
I did do some of those things. I would usually label and dismiss. Then i would just repeat a verse a felt disproved what you were saying and that it was so obvious that it didn't need explaining. A lot of pride invoiced. I also wouldn't read anything that wasn't Calvinistic. I thought along the lines of the pulpit and pen, anything that wasn't what Paul-the reformers- was heresy and i would label and dismiss. I bought into the things some of the leaders say, i saw only arminianism as the other option and that God looking to see your faith so choosing you was ridiculous and non biblical. When confronted with any arminian ideas i would kinda just choose my hearing because i didn't need to bother listening because they were wrong. I would pray God would show them how wrong they are and lead them to the Truth of Calvinism. I sincerely loved "God" i had the desire to protect what was true about him, to defend his glory. A earnest desire for people to come to the Lord. I never got to the Pink lvl of Calvinism. I was more like spurgeon. I believed Calvinism was the gospel and by sharing it i was sharing the gospel. Though i did hold to contradictions in my beliefs like spurgeon did when addressing certain passages. I know now it was another gospel i was sharing. I had no idea what the church believed and taught prior to Augustine because no one really wants to discuss that. Though as it is the point when the ideas of Constantine and Augustine really perverted the body and turned it into something that looked nothing like Christ it seems we would do well as a body to really think hard about whether the way we do "church" today is a carryover of that 4th century or following the directions Paul gives in 1 Cor and what it means to follow Christ.
As far as my question above i rely do want to know and Think maybe facing this point honestly from a historical and logical stand point might help open the eyes of many people still caught up in this deception. I came to repentance and was born again then got sucked into Calvinism. I don't doubt i was saved and really wrong. So i don't doubt that people who believe in Calvinism can be saved but the teaching is really harmful to their lives and relationship with God. To know God and Jesus Christ is eternal life. I realise now that i had a completely inaccurate view of who God is and was so wrong about a lot of things i was pridefully convinced of. I've seen the fallout of this system in the lives of people. As a calvinist the advise i gave was not helpful and only reinforced the very thing causing the problem i was genuinely trying to help them with. So i ask the question and hope someone can give me a thoughtful answer because it doesn't really make any sense to me logically how a system that has 4 of 6 things in common with Gnostic teaching is a good thing considering the early church stance, and Paul, against these teachings and the people spreading them. So it's not about condemnation but enlightenment and shining a light on where these ideas start because it's not in the bible imo. ❤
Nathan Burgett Sorry I couldn't help you more. Since most "Calvinists" don't know what is Gnostic teachings you could bring up the points in conversation in a casual way. Because if they think/suspect you are questioning or dissing their philosophical system your inquiry will be short. Out of curiosity what are the things in common you've mentioned?? I'd like to compare them to Purest Calvinism I'm familiar with.
"By the authority of Augustin"--- Well, Augustin of Hippo died about 425 A.D. Why didn't Jean Cauvin go to the first 400 years, to the direct line disciples of the Apostles?? Because their view of Free Will did not fit with Jean Cauvin's "I speak for God" mentality. 400 years is a lot of church or apostolic history to ignore. Cauvin was a real buffet philosopher. Look at all the history in the USA in the past 200 some years, then add another 200. That's a lot of history and material to brush aside.
Calvinism is the theistic application of Orwellian double-think.
If you take Calvinism at it's stated definition, then yes, Calvinism teaches that God is the author of evil.
The old testament says Yhwh is the author of evil. All kinds of difficulties arise when we assume that The Father whom Jesus revealed is the same god the Jews knew.
Let me suggest what I suggested before:
Your series should be titled "Does Calvinism imply X" rather than "Do Calvinists believe X".
Calvinism *clearly* implies God is the Author of evil and you can make that statement logically and objectively without touching the entirely subjective question "Do Calvinists believe X".
Some Calvinists actively *believe* that, most don't actively believe it, BUT Calvinism *clearly* implies God is the Author of evil and this series should be about Calvinism as a systematic, not what "Calvinists believe."
I may be wrong but it seems to be blasphemy to blame God for authoring evil. That's why Calvinists have to do a huge word re-definition dance with hoops, smoke and mirrors.
Yes, absolutely. 'Does Calvinism imply God is the Author of Evil?' It most definitely does, whether Calvinists 'accept' it or not.
Kuck:
Then we agree God is the Author of evil.
That makes me *sad,* how does it make you feel?
20july1944 By 'evil', we do not mean 'disaster' (Isaiah 45:7) but rather 'moral evil' and sin.
Does Calvinism emply God takes pleasure in, and is the Author of Moral Evil & Sin? The logical conclusion, is in the affirmative.
Michael Opalenik What Calvinists fail to understand is that rejecting their systematic IS 'standing with Scripture'. Only fools hold tightly in their heart, to Biblical misunderstandings in the form of contradictions.
"Marcion says that this God is the author of evils..." -- Irenaeus, Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume I p. 352
The only people who believed that God is the author of evil, were heretics and Gnostics. Say what you want about Jon Piper, that quote is horrendously heretical and is a disgusting view of God. He, along with all Calvinists who believe like him, are not following the God of the Bible.
sadly you did not do enough research on the topic and ended up making a false claim. i'm not a calvinist btw - so no bias. looking into Calvin's writings and others, like Shedd, they all confirm that God is not the author of sin. calvin himself had to rebute people making the same claim as you in his days- please read. God is not the efficient cause for sin, man is because man is the efficient cause of its own thoughts and choices (movement of intellect and will). by saying the "author" he simply means that what God decree will come to pass (isa. 46:10; e. g. acts 2:23). you should retract yourself in good conscience.
Humans have a will, but it's not free of the myriad of influences that, yes, sovereign God controls. He is the potter, we are the clay. Armenians and Calvinists get it wrong by not realizing that Jesus came to save the world (and the cross WAS sufficient). The two corporate heads of humanity were Adam and Christ. "For even as, in Adam, all are dying, thus also, in Christ, shall all be vivified, Yet each in his own class (according to God's timing)..." Believe it or not, ALL means ALL.
... this passage from 1 Cor. 15 goes on to describe the consummation, Christ placing all enemies under His feet...the last enemy being death...Christ subjecting Himself to the Father...and the Father being "All in all". The scriptures are replete with God's stated will to reconcile all things to Himself. In order to begin to understand this, one must understand that three separate Greek words were all mistranslated hell in many bible versions, including the KJV. Also, the Hebrew word olam and the Greek word aion were mistranslated forever (and ever) and eternal...instead of age or eon (which denotes a period of time with a beginning and end).
Is. 47:5 says, "Former of light and Creator of darkness, Maker of good and Creator of evil. I, Yahweh Elohim, made all of these things." God created and is responsible for evil, but is using it for His good purposes (TO TEACH) and as a vivid backdrop to highlight His glory and goodness for all creation. Glory requires infamy; resurrection requires death; salvation requires sin.
Justin Redden thank you for explaining exactly how Calvinism and universalism are so closely linked.
I think the problem is with Christian theism - not with this or that version of it. It is Christianity as such that is incoherent. Flowers is mistaking Augustine's & Calvin's teaching on God & evil.
Calvinism is an evil in the Church and should be treated as such. This constant appeal to brotherly love is absurd. Heretics should be given chances to come back to sound doctrine and then put out of the Church if they refuse. If they repent then we can talk about accepting them with brotherly love. Calvinists like many other heretics or cults reinterpret scripture to suit the doctrines of men. I once believed it possible to be friends with and have fellowship with them but I have found that its impossible to separate the person from their beliefs as a Christian. Calvinists are constantly deceptive about their beliefs and motives. Its time to honor the attitude of Paul about false teachers or those who will not hear sound doctrine. They should be rebuked and cut off from the congregation until repentance.
Because their beliefs are heretical. Scripture does not teach what Calvinist believe. God is not the author of evil.If you desire to be saved you must respond to the Gospel and meet its condition. You must have faith in Jesus Christ as your Savior and believe that he is the Son of God. To give faith to some and not others is evil, but to give everyone the chance to respond is Righteous and Godly. God is a king not a dictator.
Chris Mabe right doctrine is that Tim or Tom Bladeki guy that was making all kinds of strange comments months ago.
Judging all the people before the flood was Just, they had their chance. But to say God chooses some and not others especially under grace is foolish. When God brought the Israelites out of Egypt they perished from UNBELIEF. This was a shadow of the new testament reality. Anyone who rejects the Gospel will perish in their sins. Anyone who believes the Gospel will be saved from their sins. The bible is clear, your choices matter, to say God chooses some and denys others arbitrarily is to reject the very message it is trying to convey to us. Abraham was counted as righteous because he BELIEVED God. Believing in Jesus Christ is the only way, and to say as a doctrine God forces people to believe or prevents is evil. It is not evil for God to choose as in the case of Jesus, prophets, or apostles. The God of the bible is a King, he has absolute authority and power, but must respect the free will of his people. However, sometimes a King must make decrees that free willed people must obey, sometimes a king must raise up men for his purpose, or the greater good.
Chris Mabe Noah preached before the flood so people did hear. Every human has a conscience. They hardened their hearts as explained in Romans 1. Had they remained tenderhearted God would have sent more light. Every human being is responsible for his sin and to repent of that sin. The blood of Jesus made provision for all but not all believe by their own choice. John 3:16 among many other Scriptures make it quite clear that God loves all his creation and died for them all. God is Love. There is no love and certainly no glory to God in choosing some for damnation or even in "passing over" some. I called myself a Calvinist until I began to read and listen to them. The God of the Bible brings good out of evil but evil came into the world through the free choice of Adam and Eve.
Leighton????? All the scriptures John Piper is using have nothing to do with Evil (defined as Evil that men commit) Ex 9:13-16 is about Gods Judgement not an evil of men he turns around for our good, John 9:3, is not about evil it’s about someone being born blind.. I guess all blind people are evil??? Hebrew’s 12:3-11 is about the Chastisement of the Lord, again.. Piper called this evil??? And Lastly James 1:2-4 Is speaking about trials and the testing of our faith??? Piper is no different than 99% of Calvinist if not all.. an array of scriptures mentioned that have nothing to do with the Subject at hand..
Love your channel, but again, your desire to be respectful seems to trump the reality of the deception of Calvinist. Leighton I’ve never met a Calvinist that can hold their ground as soon as you stop them and ask them to read the scriptures they are standing on. Unfortunately teachers of the deceptive gospel are not as easily moved. Why? Maybe just maybe, they know exactly what they are doing. One line you will not cross. What ever you sow is what we will reap, Piper, MacArthur, Peters, Washer and White, believe any and all that doesn’t affirm their definition of the gospel is Hell Bound. I recently heard Peters say, that Kenneth Copeland will receive more damnation than Hitler. Agree with about 99.9% of what you say.. it would be nice if you would say more.
Also, I got born again during the WOF movement, done truly follow any of the WOF ministers due to their lifestyles that truly irk me.
As for the Word of God they preach; after you set aside their prosperity lifestyle.. God ordained this for me for that time… Bless you brother… PS no I don’t believe Calvinist parishioners are hell bound. The Calvinist Preachers a different story. I pray I am wrong…
this is just another attempt to refute Calvinism by using human reasoning. you can do the same thing with the Arminian view. for example....how can God allow people to be born "KNOWING" that they would reject Christ? and then Go to Hell.. Isn't that just as evil..? you need to stick with "correct" exegesis to define your theology...which is probably why Dr Flowers is not using scripture.
Why is the Arminian word or the Pelagian word so frequently inserted into responses to critical examinations of Calvinism's glaring problems? In the field of interviewing and interrogation it called "re-direction" or "deflecting" to move the spotlight off uncomfortable questions and make someone/something else the focus of the questions.
Steve:
You said _"how can God allow people to be born "KNOWING" that they would reject Christ? and then Go to Hell.. Isn't that just as evil..?"_
I would agree with your point, although I wouldn't say "evil" but I would say "needlessly and avoidably cruel."
*How do you feel about your own excellent point? I personally am heartsick.*
God is not evil, and He doesn't do evil. God allowing people to be born who He knows will not believe _does not_ mean that He wants them not to believe and be saved. If He has given them enough freedom to be morally responsible, that He knows that they will choose to do evil is not "just as evil" as wanting them to do evil in the first place. In fact, I could argue with God's choice to create those who He knows will reject Him, but what allows me to trust Him in spite of it is that I have abundant evidence in His word that He would that they would believe and be saved: that it's not the will of the Father that one of these little ones perish. If that is so--Jesus said it--then it establishes that God's heart is that even those people would trust Jesus and saved. And it shows also that, no, people are not bound to do what God knows they are going to do: God's foreknowledge does not predestine them to do anything. People are not trapped by something God imagined beforehand.
I come to these conclusions by taking His word to heart, believing it, trusting Him to be as He says, not by fitting His word into a framework built by pagan philosophers, then cutting away whatever doesn't fit the framework. Gods righteousness and love are so important to Him: they are the rule oif His creation, the standards by which He judges, and the reasons salvation was necessary, and Jesus was sent. Those are too important to take second place to a pagan idea of what would make God strong or weak, sovereign or dependent.
Fly:
I don't think God's love is particularly important to Him.
You wouldn't have any children you *already knew* would disappoint and reject you and force you to punish them (forever?) -- but God does.
God's foreknowledge (assuming He has it) fundamentally changes any analogy with us as parents.
Believing God can't know the future without predestining it is a lot closer to Open Theism than believing that He knows all things without predestining all things. That God knows all things is the opposite of saying that He knows all things.
But yes, I have seen the Open Theists at sites where Calvinism is discussed, trying to convince those of us who reject that God has predestined and determined all things, that a conclusion of open theism is logically necessary, the "only alternative" to Calvinism. Again, it makes no sense that God _not knowing_ all things is the _same_ as His _knowing_ all things, without that meticulous determinism of all things that LF talks about. God knowing all things = / = God not knowing all things, unable to know withiut making all things happen. No matter how you spin it, one belief does not equal the other.
In 28 minutes Flowers wasted so much time talking about little issues and misrepresenting Reformed Theology. I stopped listening with a few minutes left because he never once said the word compatibalism, or addresses the fact that Scipture is superior to our logic. Rather he pontificated with his own logical critiques which sounded so simple and plausible as long as you dont read the bible on theses matters. The problem with Flowers arument is not Calvinism but the Scriptues themselves, and I suspect that is why he rarely used scripture instead of his human logic in this critique.
Compatibilism you say?
A word invented from the context of which book, chapter or verse of the bible?
Or invented to get contented with a contradiction a calvinist created.
Which one are we to go with?
That God decreed everything down to your typing this message and yet you typed voluntarily?
If that is what you call Compatibilism then you need to bring the scriptural context for such concept before you accuse someone else of not using the bible.
@@tivmego Gen 50: 20 should do. Both God and man desired something be done, and it is compatible to say both God and man willed it and are responsible for it. But they aren't equally culpable for it, the men meant it for evil, God meant it for good.
@@oracleoftroy
Oh sorry, I see you are replying to compatibilism?
I don't know if you are trolling or you really understand the meaning of compatibilism. I remember you and we have argued this before. The last time, I told you you will end up claiming this is compatibilism and finally you have come to that conclusion.
All it means is determinism and free will are mutually compatible but you must be mistaken what free will and determinism mean.
To make this very short as your Gen.50:20 quotation is off the mark by a million miles, kindly define free will and then define determinism or whatever you want to call it as opposed to free will and let's take it from there from common sense.
@@tivmego _"I don't know if you are trolling or you really understand the meaning of compatibilism."_
What do you think compatibilism means?
_"The last time, I told you you will end up claiming this is compatibilism and finally you have come to that conclusion."_
Um, duh? I am arguing that God's will and Man's will are not in conflict but are compatible with each other. It was obviously a response to your compatibilism challenge. Why are you pretending that this is supposed to be some big secret?
_"All it means is determinism and free will are mutually compatible but you must be mistaken what free will and determinism mean."_
Ok, please define "determinism" and "free will" for me.
_"To make this very short as your Gen.__50:20__ quotation is off the mark by a million miles,.."_
I'll answer your assertion with one of my own: Gen 50: 20 elegantly refutes libertarian theories of free will and can't be used to argue against a compatibilist theory of free will. If you disagree, then please explain your non-compatibilist version of free will and how you make sense of that verse.
_"kindly define free will and then define determinism or whatever you want to call it as opposed to free will and let's take it from there from common sense."_
There are many definitions, as it is a pretty big topic, but the Reformed perspective is nicely laid out in the Westminster Confession chapter 9. The overly brief summary is that man is free to do whatever they desire; they aren't compelled or determined in any absolutely necessary way. The fall has tarnished our will such that it is now a "slave to sin" as the Bible puts it. We still have free will, but in the way a slave also has free will. We can do what we desire, but ultimately our desires serve our master, sin. It doesn't remove our ability to do any good deed, but we do not desire to obey God and so we do freely sin.
The Reformed also have a related doctrine of primary cause and second causes. I recall talking with you about WCF 3.1 where you would just ignore everything we say after the first half of the sentence and then declare that you won.
The Calvinist position is that God ordains what comes to pass, where ordain should be understood in the ordinary dictionary sense of the word and not the innovative "exhaustive determinism" or "meticulous control" that some anti-Calvinists use. That God ordains something doesn't make him the author of sin, but it establishes our free will and the liberty of second causes to make our own choices. Our own choices fall within God's ordination, but aren't necessary, but rather contingent.
E.g. God made male and female, and he made them good. But people use that God created gift to go outside of God's prescription and commit adultery. Is God guilty of sin for making males and females attractive in each other's eyes and making sex pleasurable? No, God should be praised for his good creation, and humans condemned for their misuse of God's gifts. And yet, if God did not make humans as he did, they could not sin in that way, so there is some sort of casual relationship all Christians must deal with.
You could go down the route some do and assume that Satan is like the gnostic demiurge who creates all the bad stuff in the universe. Or you could assume that God was a bit of a bumbling idiot who didn't know what he was doing, so when man unexpectedly sinned, he now is scrambling to fix the mess. But historic Christianity has always assumed that God knew what was going to happen before he created it, and so intended this universe as is for some very good purpose that can't in the grand scheme of things be said to be culpable.
And no, I didn't hop into a time machine and compel the Westminster Divines to redefine any words, this is just historic confessional Calvinism and not the typical anti-Calvinist strawman version.
@@oracleoftroy
Can a person freely believe or the sin has so tarnish them that they "cannot" even believe unless God regenerates them?
All theologies that believe that God created the universe OUT OF NOTHING are also believing that God created all evil out of nothing, and therefore is ultimately responsible for all evil.
Saying that God gives beings free will and agency does not resolve the matter. Because it is clear that beings like Abraham exist that use their fee will to gain salvation, and also beings like Cain exist that do not use their free will to gain salvation.
If God created both Abraham and Cain out of nothing, then clearly God has the power to create beings both ways, and thus God chose to create Cain with a free will that would choose to be evil.
Heber Frank
If God created Cain with a free will that _would_ choose evil, it was not a fee will at all. You have Cain created with an inclination to do evil that was more inclined toward evil than Abel or Seth. Scripturally, all three were born into a human race that was created "good", but became fallen through the sins of their parents. God did not create their parents as evil, and He did not create the children by special creation, but by birth to their fallen parents.
Heber Frank
God didn't create Cain out of nothing. Cain was born to fallen parents, just as we are.
Calvin is French. Ask yourself? Did anything good ever come from France?
I'M 100% FRENCH, BUT NOT A CALVINIST. DID ANYTHING GOOD EVER COME FROM FRANCE? ME LOL. GOD BLESS YOU.
These kinds of comments do not give glory to God. My family is also French. Are we less valuable? Please be carful with the kinds of comments you say, non christians already have enough ammunition from christians saying unloving comments like these. Just a word of advice from a fellow Christian. Also I’m not a Calvinist nor do I agree with John Calvin but to say he is any less loved by God because he is French is just.... wrong. God bless.
@@pintsin1
WERE YOU REFERRING TO MUDITHA OR ME? PLEASE LET ME NOW? GOD BLESS YOU MY FRIEND.
Merci Beaucoup muditha :p apologies I thought it was clear.
@@pintsin1
THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME KNOW. I'M ALSO 100% CHRISTIAN FRENCH LOL. YOU SURE MADE IT CRYSTAL CLEAR. GOD BLESS YOU MY FRIEND.
You should change that title to.say that thr myths are in Calvinism, not about it.
Your channel is rather egotistical, flippant, and weak at times..You also should say that Calvinism is false as opposed to this "we disagree" business.
God is not the author of evil He did not start evil how dare anyone even say such a thing. God is sovereign over all things He is not the author of sin God forbid! You have gone way off base here in bringing such an evil subject to this platform to even hint that God has anything to do with this nonsense! Sad, that this is even a subject truly sad.
I believe you put yourself in serious danger by entertaining these kinds of thoughts God is a holy God, a righteous God a sinless God. Shame on you folks for this awful subect.