Live stream of ReformCon Day 2! James White speaks. Please consider donating to our Kauai Church plant in lieu of providing this free of charge at apologiakauai.com
I am proud that I know the true LORD GOD! '"But let him who boasts boast in this, that he understands and knows me, that I am the LORD who practices steadfast love, justice, and righteousness in the earth. For in these things I delight, declares the LORD.”
I knew I was saved and hadn't even heard of most of the terms used to describe biblical truth. I accept the 5 points because that is consistent with what I saw in scripture.
at 29:55 he again asserts that God is in time. The other time he tried to back out with "logical order" but when he speaks from the cuff like here it is clear that he really thinks God is in time.
For all you in the comments I have a question, why is it that not having the full knowledge of the gospel you have excepted is a sin that can't be saved from?? If I were to ever get married to someone (biblical example of Christ and the church) my wife may think she knows of something I did or have done but be completely wrong about that after I tell her 20 years down the line because she was mistaken or misheard and then correct herself, or she could go on forever and not ever know that what she believed about my story was wrong. She is still married to me in both cases correct???
Lol. When it’s a live stream you typically want to leave some open space at the start to allow people to start lingering into the stream. Sort of like you would unlock the doors of a venue 30 minutes before the start of an event to allow the place to fill up.
At 1:12:20 "Let he..." This is another example of pseudo-intellectuals for whom learning grammar meant memorizing some rules (and then flubbing them up) rather than grasping the concepts.
I have a question with regards to Calvinism. I understand that not all will be saved, and that God knows those that will choose him. Since God is out of time, the time we live in, this would mean he already knows what is to occur. By stating in Calvinism that Jesus died for many; the word many emphasis that those that choose him, those will be saved. Does this conclude that Jesus only died for some and not all. That is the biggest challenge I have at this time. The way I understand it is that God, sent his only begotten son, Jesus, so that no one should perish. Can someone at Apolgia please provide me some explanation on this. Thank you.
Fernando - It is a difficult thing to come to understand once you have had it drilled in to you that Christ died for everyone who has ever lived. But for those, like myself, who came to faith in a church without that emphasis, the Bible's teaching is much easier to see and accept. Read the Bible's own descriptions of Christ's death. Repeatedly the accounts restrict the effect of his death to a group, sometimes called the elect, sometimes other things. Take a look at John 10 and read Christ's own words. He says in verse 14 & 15, "I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep." Do you see, Jesus says he lays down his life for his "own" sheep. Please respond if you would like to ask anything more.
Was Apostel Paul proud when he Said: the Gospel is what I have been preaching to you. Everyone who is preaching something else is cursed? No, Calvinism is the Gospel and watching this video I believe now that James e just denied the Gospel here! Few will be saved. Very few.
John Piper calls himself a 7-point calvanist. He has stated that he would die for his son out of love to save him, but if God didn't predestined his son, then he is damned for all eternity. God could have created him a vessel of wrath.
I was one of those who grouped all Calvinists into the hyper Calvinist box simply because I didn't know any better . I'm still not clear on everything a Calvinist such as James White believes but I do know there are many things I do agree with him on . When it comes to election and predestination I think I probably would disagree as I believe salvation is available to everyone but of Course God knows in advance who will believe and who will not .
That is an scriptural view. Have you read John 6, Ephesians 1&2 along with the book of Romans? Philippians 1:29 Man is radically depraved after the fall, his inclinations are towards evil. Man will not choose God on his own. Romans 3:23 1 Corinthians 2:14 Romans 3:10-12 1 John 8-10 Ephesians 2:1-5 Romans 8:7-8 Now read John 6:44,65 & Philippians 2:13 & 1 Corinthians 1:30 Then remember to Read Romans 9 Read psalm 33 and look at what God does Gods will is sovereign not our own. God bless my brother feel free to correct me or discuss it further. The Holy Spirit quickened us.
All of these references are trumped by John 3:16, which is the gospel in its complete form; but you will say that salvation for all means all the elect. To that I will instruct you to read Acts 17:30. How does a Calvinist explain all men everywhere? Salvation is a global call. I believe and teach both predestination and free will choice because they are both in the Bible. The only way to bring these 2 doctrines together is to look into God's foreknowledge. Romans 8:29 and 1 Pet. 1:2 both show that it is by reason of his foreknowledge that we are called elect. God foreknows or foresees the future. The Holy Spirit is the spirit of prophecy. Since this is established fact, please examine the Greek proginosko. The only way this word can be translated is foreknow or foresee. God knew when I would be saved, but that does not imply that I had no choice in the matter? You must also consider the fact of God's permissive will as seen in the book of Job. Did God make Satan afflict Job, or did he allow it? God allows sin to exist but he does not make it happen. These 2 points are vital in understanding how both doctrines can coexist in scripture. James White speaks of Hyper- Calvinism, but I have submitted the truth that all Calvinists believe and teach the same doctrines found in Calvin's TULIP teaching. My biggest argument against Calvinism is the doctrine of eternal decrees. How can any thinking Christian accept this doctrine as biblically sound theology? This is where James and I parted ways. To say that God made every act in history come to pass, whether good or evil, is equivalent to calling God evil. James was quoted as saying that God decreed child rape. That is warped doctrine my friend. This is the unpardonable sin that Jesus spoke of. If you say that the works of the devil are actually the work of God, you are calling God evil. James treads on dangerous ground when he starts talking about divine decrees. Calvinism is a foul doctrine that teaches some Biblical truth. Because of this, it is extremely deceitful; but when those persuaded by the doctrines of Reformed Theology begin to speak of God's divine decree, is this not the epitome of hyper Calvinism? You decide, but as for me and my house, we will reject Calvinism on the basis of this obvious heresy. It is my prayer that you consider the truth I share and adamantly avoid anything that comes from the teachings of John Calvin.
All of these references are trumped by John 3:16, which is the gospel in its complete form; but you will say that salvation for all means all the elect. To that I will instruct you to read Acts 17:30. How does a Calvinist explain all men everywhere? Salvation is a global call. I believe and teach both predestination and free will choice because they are both in the Bible. The only way to bring these 2 doctrines together is to look into God's foreknowledge. Romans 8:29 and 1 Pet. 1:2 both show that it is by reason of his foreknowledge that we are called elect. God foreknows or foresees the future. The Holy Spirit is the spirit of prophecy. Since this is established fact, please examine the Greek proginosko. The only way this word can be translated is foreknow or foresee. God knew when I would be saved, but that does not imply that I had no choice in the matter? You must also consider the fact of God's permissive will as seen in the book of Job. Did God make Satan afflict Job, or did he allow it? God allows sin to exist but he does not make it happen. These 2 points are vital in understanding how both doctrines can coexist in scripture. James White speaks of Hyper- Calvinism, but I have submitted the truth that all Calvinists believe and teach the same doctrines found in Calvin's TULIP teaching. My biggest argument against Calvinism is the doctrine of eternal decrees. How can any thinking Christian accept this doctrine as biblically sound theology? This is where James and I parted ways. To say that God made every act in history come to pass, whether good or evil, is equivalent to calling God evil. James was quoted as saying that God decreed child rape. That is warped doctrine my friend. This is the unpardonable sin that Jesus spoke of. If you say that the works of the devil are actually the work of God, you are calling God evil. James treads on dangerous ground when he starts talking about divine decrees. Calvinism is a foul doctrine that teaches some Biblical truth. Because of this, it is extremely deceitful; but when those persuaded by the doctrines of Reformed Theology begin to speak of God's divine decree, is this not the epitome of hyper Calvinism? You decide, but as for me and my house, we will reject Calvinism on the basis of this obvious heresy. It is my prayer that you consider the truth I share and adamantly avoid anything that comes from the teachings of John Calvin.
All of these references are trumped by John 3:16, which is the gospel in its complete form; but you will say that salvation for all means all the elect. To that I will instruct you to read Acts 17:30. How does a Calvinist explain all men everywhere? Salvation is a global call. I believe and teach both predestination and free will choice because they are both in the Bible. The only way to bring these 2 doctrines together is to look into God's foreknowledge. Romans 8:29 and 1 Pet. 1:2 both show that it is by reason of his foreknowledge that we are called elect. God foreknows or foresees the future. The Holy Spirit is the spirit of prophecy. Since this is established fact, please examine the Greek proginosko. The only way this word can be translated is foreknow or foresee. God knew when I would be saved, but that does not imply that I had no choice in the matter? You must also consider the fact of God's permissive will as seen in the book of Job. Did God make Satan afflict Job, or did he allow it? God allows sin to exist but he does not make it happen. These 2 points are vital in understanding how both doctrines can coexist in scripture. James White speaks of Hyper- Calvinism, but I have submitted the truth that all Calvinists believe and teach the same doctrines found in Calvin's TULIP teaching. My biggest argument against Calvinism is the doctrine of eternal decrees. How can any thinking Christian accept this doctrine as biblically sound theology? This is where James and I parted ways. To say that God made every act in history come to pass, whether good or evil, is equivalent to calling God evil. James was quoted as saying that God decreed child rape. That is warped doctrine my friend. This is the unpardonable sin that Jesus spoke of. If you say that the works of the devil are actually the work of God, you are calling God evil. James treads on dangerous ground when he starts talking about divine decrees. Calvinism is a foul doctrine that teaches some Biblical truth. Because of this, it is extremely deceitful; but when those persuaded by the doctrines of Reformed Theology begin to speak of God's divine decree, is this not the epitome of hyper Calvinism? You decide, but as for me and my house, we will reject Calvinism on the basis of this obvious heresy. It is my prayer that you consider the truth I share and adamantly avoid anything that comes from the teachings of John Calvin.
@@Pastor-Brettbyfaith John chapter 3 is about why it is that Nicodemus will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven. He asks multiple times "what must I do". When Jesus says he must be born again, Nicodemus understands he played no role in his physical birth, and therefore would understand he could play no roll in his rebirth. So John chapter 3 refutes your understanding of John 3:16.
I'm a big fan of James White as a bible teacher and debater. However I found the first 3 quarters of this unfocused and muddled. It was hard to pin point what he was trying to say. For example was he claiming Jonathon Edwards had hyper-Calvinistic tendencies? Are there any popular preachers today that qualify as hyper-Calvinists?
Urea Smith - His point concerning Jonathan Edwards was not that he went towards the hyper-Calvinistic position, but that, unlike Calvin himself, Edwards at times tried to apply logic and reasoning to "fill in the gaps" left by the Bible. By doing this, Edwards sometimes left himself in impossible positions. Calvin, I think wisely and correctly, strictly restricted himself to go AS FAR as the Bible, but NO FURTHER. Does this clear it up? I would suggest that "popular preachers" are unlikely to be hyper-Calvinists, who have a tendency to form small, closed, communities.
Right, I understand. I think his emphasis was on how a Calvinist can resist the temptation to go to the "hyper-Calvinist" side, which can be a real danger, and how to recognise movement in that direction.
@Russell Peacock - Hi, I don't understand what you are saying? Calvin said that he would go as far as the Bible, but no further. That meant that he affirmed, with the Bible, that God has decreed evil without being the author of sin, but did not seek to speculate on *how* that is so. The exact workings of the Trinity would be another example. At times Edwards went beyond Calvin in speculating about these things. That was my point above.
Six point of Calvinism. Yea,TULIPST Totally DepravityU Unconditional ElectionL Limited AtonementI Irresistible Grace P Perseverance of the SaintsS SovereigntyIt works... Better then the Arminian FlowerDaisyHe love meHe loves me notHe loves meHe loves me notHe love me yea
1) "Theological perfectionism", also known as "logical consistency". 2) "Claimed knowledge of the secret decree rather than the prescriptive will", except in any brand of Calvinism it is all too easy to know what the secret decrees have been, since the secret decrees always happen. 3) "The search for signs of regeneration", also known as "by your fruits you will know them" (although, admittedly, the poison of Calvinism makes such fruit-detecting an occasion to unconditionally damn others). 4) "A refusal to promiscuously proclaim the Gospel to every creature, including in that proclamation the call to repentance and faith on the part of every hearer", which goes back to that whole "logical consistency" thing. Or we can just reject Reformed theology for the rationalistic innovation that it is, and go back to what has been taught since the beginning: Sacramental theology.
Hi Barely Protestant, please tell me what you think is "rationalistic" about Reformed theology? If anything it could be said to be "anti-rationalistic" as it accepts the Bibles teachings even where there are apparent contradictions. It is EVERY OTHER stream of Christianity which passes the word of God through rational filters to create their theology.
Think AboutIt The problem is that Reformed theology, and especially Reformed monergism, is ahistorical; that's where I'm claiming that it is rationalistic, as it has no thread, whatsoever, through the centuries back to the Apostles. It is an entire re-forming of the interpretation of Scripture, one in which the history of the Church is almost entirely forgotten. It is the position that everyone magically got it wrong until Zwingli and Calvin came along.
Barely Protestant - The reformers' soteriology certainly bore some similarities with Augustine. The question comes down to your source of authority. I would say that I follow the reformers in holding the word of God as my ONLY authority. You seem to be proposing a "word of God as interpreted by the church" position, which is "barely protestant"! In fact, use a capital "C" for Church and you are a Roman Catholic ;-) Church history has shown that God HAS preserved his church, but not without error. I would view the reformers as having rediscovered Biblical truths which had become hidden, rejected and over-written by years of tradition and lack of study of the Bible IN IT'S ORIGINAL LANGUAGES. No "magically got it wrong", just "gradually lost sight of".
Think AboutIt No; St. Augustine held to Sacramental theology. And I do consider myself Catholic, just not Roman Catholic (a specific type of Catholic). You hold the same position as Mormons in your claim of the knowledge of salvation being lost for hundreds of years. It's an extremist, anti-historical, anti-ecclesial position, but it's the only one a Reformed Christian can make.
Barely Protestant - I too consider myself a member of the "catholic" church and I do not consider the "knowledge of salvation" ever to have been lost. Like the vast majority of Reformed Christians (I'm not sure it really deserves a capital, but well...) I consider myself to be a brother of all those who have had a true faith in Christ and his saving work, in ALL ages and in ANY church. What had been lost was a fully Biblical understanding of salvation. God has, and still does, bless and use the words of men with incomplete understandings concerning the Gospel to bring men and women to salvation. This is just as well since I don't think anyone, reformed or not, has a complete understanding! It is strange, I have seen many more instances of non-reformed wanting to "de-Christianise" Calvinists than the other way round, and yet it is a common accusation to come our way. I have great sympathy for your wanting to stick with the historic belief of the church. Indeed, novelty of belief or doctrine should be an alarm bell and be believed only if it has overwhelming Biblical support. But, the church HAS made mistakes, even the Roman Catholics had difficulties with selling indulgences! I believe the reformation returned to Biblical truths which had become (largely) hidden and truths which direct all of the glory for salvation to God, rather keeping some back for man.
at 1:09:20 "He does not require I to..." I'm sorry but all preachers that make this grammatical mistake -- and there are many -- should be required to step down for a year and review basic English while remaining silent.
I get why people call it hypercalvinism. I also appreciate that people see the dangers of it. However, wouldn't logically consistent 5 point Calvinism be a more accurate description? If God has decreed who will be saved, and in doing passed over the rest; the "hypercalvinist" is only being consistent with his belief in determinism. The answer imo isn't telling people "yes it's true God determines all things, But you should live like you make real choices and like it's not true." Which I've heard from piper and other leading Calvinists. Personally i think the answer is to go back and look at everything the church taught for tyre first 300 years. When you do you'll see the only way you find determinism in their writings is to read it into it, just as with the bible. In fact You'll find them stating the heritics reject free will. Meaning the Gnostics, who were heretical for other reasons though rejection of free will was a bases for their beliefs. The same things Muhammad used to make Islam, the gnostic gospels. So it's no wonder they also reject free will. You'll find the turn happened in the 4th century after Constantine came. Then then, before he died, the former gnostic Augustine began teaching determinism contrary to the church prior. These beliefs infected the church and led to issues no less serious then the letters Jesus sent to the 7 churches. With the merging of church and state the enemy was able to enforce false doctrine on the masses, by threat of force and death. Then the reformation began strong 1100 years later. However, it was highjacked. The ones who took control were only willing to "reform" back to Augustine, not Jesus. Men like hubmyer believed God is patient with his enemies, so we should win them over with prayer, love, and patience; Not with fire and sword. He was killed four his belief and desire to follow Jesus. If you really look at the word in context and the early church in context as a whole. You'll see the protestant movement was just as wrong as the Catholic church. Neither follow the example of following Jesus. So I'm just Saying the "hyperCalvinist" is being logically consistent with the foundational claims of Calvinism while rejecting the illogical conclusions stated in the system. We agree it's not a good thing. So my opinion is that we could fix the problem if we return to the simplicity of following Christ and reject empty deceit, philosophy, and traditions based on the spirit of the world rather then Christ. Please seek the Spirit of Truth given by the Father to everyone that believes. I was a 5 point consistent Calvinist. God humbled and corrected me. I tried to resist for like 6 months. He would not stop though. Thank God. He's opened my eyes to see things i couldn't before. There is a drought of Truth, We are close to the end. Please consider what I'm saying objectively and prayerfully. Time is short and we need to let the world know that everyone falls short of the glory of God, that God has provided salvation for every person, he calls everyone to humble themselves and come. Jesus is really clear. When you come to Christ the veil is removed. Love y'all❤
ReformCON - what a concept, will Sulu be there? How does sovereignty relate to world history? Another Global Impacting truth is the Great Flood ... here's the hip hop (aka rap w/ a dose of swag) version: youngearthscienceblog.blogspot.com/2016/06/please-dont-dis-my-tribe-ice-j.html Peace Out, ice-j
personally, i hate the idea of going back to the reformation. them people (calvin and the crew) should have just gone back to the bible and that is what born-again believers need to do. Know God.
When will those who call themselves "Calvinists" admit their doctrine comes from Augustine's attempt to explain how infants could become the "elect" through water baptism? Since the child had not come to faith, it must be based on the will of another. It could have nothing to do with the will of the child. See Dr. Ken Wilson's research on the writings of Augustine, which is found on Leighton Flower's RUclips channel, "Soteriology 101".
That said i like watching the dividing line and own a few of white's books. i like his work against cults just dont like his heretical hyper calvanism.
Did you watch the video? Do you know what hyper-Calvinism is? You may disagree with Calvinism and with James White, but to describe him as a hyper-Calvinist is, quite simply, incorrect.
the man learned his theology from james white instead of the Holy Spirit. White learned from Calvin instead of the Spirit of truth. That's how error creeps into the Church.
We have free will. God desires all to be saved and not willing any should perish. The first mistake Calvinists make is stating that if you aren't one of them you are automatically an Arminian. Both are faulty
just jump to the 15:00 minute mark
Thank you
I am proud that I know the true LORD GOD!
'"But let him who boasts boast in this, that he understands and knows me, that I am the LORD who practices steadfast love, justice, and righteousness in the earth. For in these things I delight, declares the LORD.”
repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ = elect
I knew I was saved and hadn't even heard of most of the terms used to describe biblical truth. I accept the 5 points because that is consistent with what I saw in scripture.
Wow, I never got a B in high school either... Made plenty of C's and D's, but never any B's.
Great stuff! Someone should send this to Dr. James White, I think he'd really benefit from what this guy has to say.
Thank you! A very helpful message.
at 29:55 he again asserts that God is in time. The other time he tried to back out with "logical order" but when he speaks from the cuff like here it is clear that he really thinks God is in time.
Try listening again. You may have missed context.
For all you in the comments I have a question, why is it that not having the full knowledge of the gospel you have excepted is a sin that can't be saved from?? If I were to ever get married to someone (biblical example of Christ and the church) my wife may think she knows of something I did or have done but be completely wrong about that after I tell her 20 years down the line because she was mistaken or misheard and then correct herself, or she could go on forever and not ever know that what she believed about my story was wrong. She is still married to me in both cases correct???
Why 10 minutes of nothing at the start? Did Ray Charles edit this?
Even Ray could hear?
Lol. When it’s a live stream you typically want to
leave some open space at the start to allow people to start lingering into the stream. Sort of like you would unlock the doors of a venue 30 minutes before the start of an event to allow the place to fill up.
I like how the typeface for ReformCon makes it looks so intense and legit. It makes one excited for all the reformation that's going on in there.
It makes sense.
At 1:12:20 "Let he..." This is another example of pseudo-intellectuals for whom learning grammar meant memorizing some rules (and then flubbing them up) rather than grasping the concepts.
Listening made me so glad to be Lutheran.
Ew.
then don't claim to follow Luther, Soterialogicaly
LOL YEP!
Bruce Zittlow more like a non-Luther Lutheran
Excellent
I have a question with regards to Calvinism. I understand that not all will be saved, and that God knows those that will choose him. Since God is out of time, the time we live in, this would mean he already knows what is to occur. By stating in Calvinism that Jesus died for many; the word many emphasis that those that choose him, those will be saved. Does this conclude that Jesus only died for some and not all. That is the biggest challenge I have at this time. The way I understand it is that God, sent his only begotten son, Jesus, so that no one should perish. Can someone at Apolgia please provide me some explanation on this. Thank you.
Fernando - It is a difficult thing to come to understand once you have had it drilled in to you that Christ died for everyone who has ever lived. But for those, like myself, who came to faith in a church without that emphasis, the Bible's teaching is much easier to see and accept. Read the Bible's own descriptions of Christ's death. Repeatedly the accounts restrict the effect of his death to a group, sometimes called the elect, sometimes other things.
Take a look at John 10 and read Christ's own words. He says in verse 14 & 15, "I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep." Do you see, Jesus says he lays down his life for his "own" sheep.
Please respond if you would like to ask anything more.
Such a good message! I have been guilty of pride in theology!
Was Apostel Paul proud when he Said: the Gospel is what I have been preaching to you. Everyone who is preaching something else is cursed? No, Calvinism is the Gospel and watching this video I believe now that James e just denied the Gospel here! Few will be saved. Very few.
the gospel is what Christ did FOR us. the fruit of the gospel is what He does IN us. so sanctification is not the gospel but the fruit of the gospel
Wrong!!! Sanctification is a part of salvation!! Salvation is all of the LORD!!!
@@ElenaBaumann never said it was not part of salvation,said it is the fruit of the gospel
John Piper calls himself a 7-point calvanist. He has stated that he would die for his son out of love to save him, but if God didn't predestined his son, then he is damned for all eternity. God could have created him a vessel of wrath.
The first whole ten minutes of nothing. RUclips must LOVE you guys.
I was one of those who grouped all Calvinists into the hyper Calvinist box simply because I didn't know any better . I'm still not clear on everything a Calvinist such as James White believes but I do know there are many things I do agree with him on . When it comes to election and predestination I think I probably would disagree as I believe salvation is available to everyone but of Course God knows in advance who will believe and who will not .
That is an scriptural view. Have you read John 6, Ephesians 1&2 along with the book of Romans?
Philippians 1:29
Man is radically depraved after the fall, his inclinations are towards evil.
Man will not choose God on his own.
Romans 3:23
1 Corinthians 2:14
Romans 3:10-12
1 John 8-10
Ephesians 2:1-5
Romans 8:7-8
Now read John 6:44,65 & Philippians 2:13 & 1 Corinthians 1:30
Then remember to Read Romans 9
Read psalm 33 and look at what God does
Gods will is sovereign not our own. God bless my brother feel free to correct me or discuss it further. The Holy Spirit quickened us.
All of these references are trumped by John 3:16, which is the gospel in its complete form; but you will say that salvation for all means all the elect. To that I will instruct you to read Acts 17:30. How does a Calvinist explain all men everywhere? Salvation is a global call.
I believe and teach both predestination and free will choice because they are both in the Bible. The only way to bring these 2 doctrines together is to look into God's foreknowledge. Romans 8:29 and 1 Pet. 1:2 both show that it is by reason of his foreknowledge that we are called elect. God foreknows or foresees the future. The Holy Spirit is the spirit of prophecy. Since this is established fact, please examine the Greek proginosko. The only way this word can be translated is foreknow or foresee. God knew when I would be saved, but that does not imply that I had no choice in the matter? You must also consider the fact of God's permissive will as seen in the book of Job. Did God make Satan afflict Job, or did he allow it? God allows sin to exist but he does not make it happen. These 2 points are vital in understanding how both doctrines can coexist in scripture.
James White speaks of Hyper- Calvinism, but I have submitted the truth that all Calvinists believe and teach the same doctrines found in Calvin's TULIP teaching. My biggest argument against Calvinism is the doctrine of eternal decrees. How can any thinking Christian accept this doctrine as biblically sound theology? This is where James and I parted ways. To say that God made every act in history come to pass, whether good or evil, is equivalent to calling God evil. James was quoted as saying that God decreed child rape. That is warped doctrine my friend. This is the unpardonable sin that Jesus spoke of. If you say that the works of the devil are actually the work of God, you are calling God evil. James treads on dangerous ground when he starts talking about divine decrees.
Calvinism is a foul doctrine that teaches some Biblical truth. Because of this, it is extremely deceitful; but when those persuaded by the doctrines of Reformed Theology begin to speak of God's divine decree, is this not the epitome of hyper Calvinism? You decide, but as for me and my house, we will reject Calvinism on the basis of this obvious heresy. It is my prayer that you consider the truth I share and adamantly avoid anything that comes from the teachings of John Calvin.
All of these references are trumped by John 3:16, which is the gospel in its complete form; but you will say that salvation for all means all the elect. To that I will instruct you to read Acts 17:30. How does a Calvinist explain all men everywhere? Salvation is a global call.
I believe and teach both predestination and free will choice because they are both in the Bible. The only way to bring these 2 doctrines together is to look into God's foreknowledge. Romans 8:29 and 1 Pet. 1:2 both show that it is by reason of his foreknowledge that we are called elect. God foreknows or foresees the future. The Holy Spirit is the spirit of prophecy. Since this is established fact, please examine the Greek proginosko. The only way this word can be translated is foreknow or foresee. God knew when I would be saved, but that does not imply that I had no choice in the matter? You must also consider the fact of God's permissive will as seen in the book of Job. Did God make Satan afflict Job, or did he allow it? God allows sin to exist but he does not make it happen. These 2 points are vital in understanding how both doctrines can coexist in scripture.
James White speaks of Hyper- Calvinism, but I have submitted the truth that all Calvinists believe and teach the same doctrines found in Calvin's TULIP teaching. My biggest argument against Calvinism is the doctrine of eternal decrees. How can any thinking Christian accept this doctrine as biblically sound theology? This is where James and I parted ways. To say that God made every act in history come to pass, whether good or evil, is equivalent to calling God evil. James was quoted as saying that God decreed child rape. That is warped doctrine my friend. This is the unpardonable sin that Jesus spoke of. If you say that the works of the devil are actually the work of God, you are calling God evil. James treads on dangerous ground when he starts talking about divine decrees.
Calvinism is a foul doctrine that teaches some Biblical truth. Because of this, it is extremely deceitful; but when those persuaded by the doctrines of Reformed Theology begin to speak of God's divine decree, is this not the epitome of hyper Calvinism? You decide, but as for me and my house, we will reject Calvinism on the basis of this obvious heresy. It is my prayer that you consider the truth I share and adamantly avoid anything that comes from the teachings of John Calvin.
All of these references are trumped by John 3:16, which is the gospel in its complete form; but you will say that salvation for all means all the elect. To that I will instruct you to read Acts 17:30. How does a Calvinist explain all men everywhere? Salvation is a global call.
I believe and teach both predestination and free will choice because they are both in the Bible. The only way to bring these 2 doctrines together is to look into God's foreknowledge. Romans 8:29 and 1 Pet. 1:2 both show that it is by reason of his foreknowledge that we are called elect. God foreknows or foresees the future. The Holy Spirit is the spirit of prophecy. Since this is established fact, please examine the Greek proginosko. The only way this word can be translated is foreknow or foresee. God knew when I would be saved, but that does not imply that I had no choice in the matter? You must also consider the fact of God's permissive will as seen in the book of Job. Did God make Satan afflict Job, or did he allow it? God allows sin to exist but he does not make it happen. These 2 points are vital in understanding how both doctrines can coexist in scripture.
James White speaks of Hyper- Calvinism, but I have submitted the truth that all Calvinists believe and teach the same doctrines found in Calvin's TULIP teaching. My biggest argument against Calvinism is the doctrine of eternal decrees. How can any thinking Christian accept this doctrine as biblically sound theology? This is where James and I parted ways. To say that God made every act in history come to pass, whether good or evil, is equivalent to calling God evil. James was quoted as saying that God decreed child rape. That is warped doctrine my friend. This is the unpardonable sin that Jesus spoke of. If you say that the works of the devil are actually the work of God, you are calling God evil. James treads on dangerous ground when he starts talking about divine decrees.
Calvinism is a foul doctrine that teaches some Biblical truth. Because of this, it is extremely deceitful; but when those persuaded by the doctrines of Reformed Theology begin to speak of God's divine decree, is this not the epitome of hyper Calvinism? You decide, but as for me and my house, we will reject Calvinism on the basis of this obvious heresy. It is my prayer that you consider the truth I share and adamantly avoid anything that comes from the teachings of John Calvin.
@@Pastor-Brettbyfaith John chapter 3 is about why it is that Nicodemus will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven. He asks multiple times "what must I do". When Jesus says he must be born again, Nicodemus understands he played no role in his physical birth, and therefore would understand he could play no roll in his rebirth. So John chapter 3 refutes your understanding of John 3:16.
I'm a big fan of James White as a bible teacher and debater. However I found the first 3 quarters of this unfocused and muddled. It was hard to pin point what he was trying to say. For example was he claiming Jonathon Edwards had hyper-Calvinistic tendencies? Are there any popular preachers today that qualify as hyper-Calvinists?
Urea Smith - His point concerning Jonathan Edwards was not that he went towards the hyper-Calvinistic position, but that, unlike Calvin himself, Edwards at times tried to apply logic and reasoning to "fill in the gaps" left by the Bible. By doing this, Edwards sometimes left himself in impossible positions. Calvin, I think wisely and correctly, strictly restricted himself to go AS FAR as the Bible, but NO FURTHER. Does this clear it up?
I would suggest that "popular preachers" are unlikely to be hyper-Calvinists, who have a tendency to form small, closed, communities.
+Think AboutIt I guess I was expecting more information about hyper Calvinism, it's dangers, and where it's being preached today.
Right, I understand. I think his emphasis was on how a Calvinist can resist the temptation to go to the "hyper-Calvinist" side, which can be a real danger, and how to recognise movement in that direction.
Didn’t Dr. White debate some hyper calvinists recently?
@Russell Peacock - Hi, I don't understand what you are saying? Calvin said that he would go as far as the Bible, but no further. That meant that he affirmed, with the Bible, that God has decreed evil without being the author of sin, but did not seek to speculate on *how* that is so. The exact workings of the Trinity would be another example. At times Edwards went beyond Calvin in speculating about these things. That was my point above.
Did I hear that he did a hypO-Calvinism session as well?
Has that been posted?
16 minutes before james even starts
55:00 what?!
Six point of Calvinism. Yea,TULIPST Totally DepravityU Unconditional ElectionL Limited AtonementI Irresistible Grace P Perseverance of the SaintsS SovereigntyIt works... Better then the Arminian FlowerDaisyHe love meHe loves me notHe loves meHe loves me notHe love me yea
Fat Mann funny 😂
1) "Theological perfectionism", also known as "logical consistency".
2) "Claimed knowledge of the secret decree rather than the prescriptive will", except in any brand of Calvinism it is all too easy to know what the secret decrees have been, since the secret decrees always happen.
3) "The search for signs of regeneration", also known as "by your fruits you will know them" (although, admittedly, the poison of Calvinism makes such fruit-detecting an occasion to unconditionally damn others).
4) "A refusal to promiscuously proclaim the Gospel to every creature, including in that proclamation the call to repentance and faith on the part of every hearer", which goes back to that whole "logical consistency" thing.
Or we can just reject Reformed theology for the rationalistic innovation that it is, and go back to what has been taught since the beginning: Sacramental theology.
Hi Barely Protestant, please tell me what you think is "rationalistic" about Reformed theology? If anything it could be said to be "anti-rationalistic" as it accepts the Bibles teachings even where there are apparent contradictions. It is EVERY OTHER stream of Christianity which passes the word of God through rational filters to create their theology.
Think AboutIt The problem is that Reformed theology, and especially Reformed monergism, is ahistorical; that's where I'm claiming that it is rationalistic, as it has no thread, whatsoever, through the centuries back to the Apostles. It is an entire re-forming of the interpretation of Scripture, one in which the history of the Church is almost entirely forgotten. It is the position that everyone magically got it wrong until Zwingli and Calvin came along.
Barely Protestant - The reformers' soteriology certainly bore some similarities with Augustine.
The question comes down to your source of authority. I would say that I follow the reformers in holding the word of God as my ONLY authority. You seem to be proposing a "word of God as interpreted by the church" position, which is "barely protestant"! In fact, use a capital "C" for Church and you are a Roman Catholic ;-)
Church history has shown that God HAS preserved his church, but not without error. I would view the reformers as having rediscovered Biblical truths which had become hidden, rejected and over-written by years of tradition and lack of study of the Bible IN IT'S ORIGINAL LANGUAGES. No "magically got it wrong", just "gradually lost sight of".
Think AboutIt No; St. Augustine held to Sacramental theology. And I do consider myself Catholic, just not Roman Catholic (a specific type of Catholic). You hold the same position as Mormons in your claim of the knowledge of salvation being lost for hundreds of years. It's an extremist, anti-historical, anti-ecclesial position, but it's the only one a Reformed Christian can make.
Barely Protestant - I too consider myself a member of the "catholic" church and I do not consider the "knowledge of salvation" ever to have been lost. Like the vast majority of Reformed Christians (I'm not sure it really deserves a capital, but well...) I consider myself to be a brother of all those who have had a true faith in Christ and his saving work, in ALL ages and in ANY church.
What had been lost was a fully Biblical understanding of salvation. God has, and still does, bless and use the words of men with incomplete understandings concerning the Gospel to bring men and women to salvation. This is just as well since I don't think anyone, reformed or not, has a complete understanding!
It is strange, I have seen many more instances of non-reformed wanting to "de-Christianise" Calvinists than the other way round, and yet it is a common accusation to come our way.
I have great sympathy for your wanting to stick with the historic belief of the church. Indeed, novelty of belief or doctrine should be an alarm bell and be believed only if it has overwhelming Biblical support.
But, the church HAS made mistakes, even the Roman Catholics had difficulties with selling indulgences! I believe the reformation returned to Biblical truths which had become (largely) hidden and truths which direct all of the glory for salvation to God, rather keeping some back for man.
at 1:09:20 "He does not require I to..." I'm sorry but all preachers that make this grammatical mistake -- and there are many -- should be required to step down for a year and review basic English while remaining silent.
the ones laughing at reformed baptist as a rule conflate the NC with the OC
I lol'd hard at 23:31-23:35.
Presented as a unique person in church history by his son-in-law... Go figure.... Calvinism lol
Lol....Jeff Durbin is not James White's son-in-law....
Moron
@@dougseely1174 Pleased to meet you Mr Moron. My name is Messian Dread.
No relation, by marriage or birth. Please investigate the facts before making comments.
I get why people call it hypercalvinism. I also appreciate that people see the dangers of it. However, wouldn't logically consistent 5 point Calvinism be a more accurate description? If God has decreed who will be saved, and in doing passed over the rest; the "hypercalvinist" is only being consistent with his belief in determinism. The answer imo isn't telling people "yes it's true God determines all things, But you should live like you make real choices and like it's not true." Which I've heard from piper and other leading Calvinists. Personally i think the answer is to go back and look at everything the church taught for tyre first 300 years. When you do you'll see the only way you find determinism in their writings is to read it into it, just as with the bible. In fact You'll find them stating the heritics reject free will. Meaning the Gnostics, who were heretical for other reasons though rejection of free will was a bases for their beliefs. The same things Muhammad used to make Islam, the gnostic gospels. So it's no wonder they also reject free will. You'll find the turn happened in the 4th century after Constantine came. Then then, before he died, the former gnostic Augustine began teaching determinism contrary to the church prior. These beliefs infected the church and led to issues no less serious then the letters Jesus sent to the 7 churches.
With the merging of church and state the enemy was able to enforce false doctrine on the masses, by threat of force and death.
Then the reformation began strong 1100 years later. However, it was highjacked. The ones who took control were only willing to "reform" back to Augustine, not Jesus. Men like hubmyer believed God is patient with his enemies, so we should win them over with prayer, love, and patience; Not with fire and sword. He was killed four his belief and desire to follow Jesus.
If you really look at the word in context and the early church in context as a whole. You'll see the protestant movement was just as wrong as the Catholic church. Neither follow the example of following Jesus.
So I'm just Saying the "hyperCalvinist" is being logically consistent with the foundational claims of Calvinism while rejecting the illogical conclusions stated in the system. We agree it's not a good thing. So my opinion is that we could fix the problem if we return to the simplicity of following Christ and reject empty deceit, philosophy, and traditions based on the spirit of the world rather then Christ. Please seek the Spirit of Truth given by the Father to everyone that believes. I was a 5 point consistent Calvinist. God humbled and corrected me. I tried to resist for like 6 months. He would not stop though. Thank God. He's opened my eyes to see things i couldn't before. There is a drought of Truth, We are close to the end. Please consider what I'm saying objectively and prayerfully. Time is short and we need to let the world know that everyone falls short of the glory of God, that God has provided salvation for every person, he calls everyone to humble themselves and come. Jesus is really clear. When you come to Christ the veil is removed. Love y'all❤
Preach the Gospel like the Apostles preached in Acts. Then u will ne neither synergist nor hyper
ReformCON - what a concept, will Sulu be there? How does sovereignty relate to world history? Another Global Impacting truth is the Great Flood ... here's the hip hop (aka rap w/ a dose of swag) version: youngearthscienceblog.blogspot.com/2016/06/please-dont-dis-my-tribe-ice-j.html Peace Out, ice-j
"Will we ever know? Tune in next time, on Dragon Ball ZZZZZZ"
Dragons-R-Dinos (July 19 post) >>
facebook.com/jay.hall.5686
personally, i hate the idea of going back to the reformation. them people (calvin and the crew) should have just gone back to the bible and that is what born-again believers need to do. Know God.
James is very bubbly. lol. must have had too much cola
When will those who call themselves "Calvinists" admit their doctrine comes from Augustine's attempt to explain how infants could become the "elect" through water baptism? Since the child had not come to faith, it must be based on the will of another. It could have nothing to do with the will of the child. See Dr. Ken Wilson's research on the writings of Augustine, which is found on Leighton Flower's RUclips channel, "Soteriology 101".
Did you guys witness Bob Enyart spank White, had him in heresy .
Bob Enyart? Since when?! Lol. That was laughable.
Bob Enyart was crying after the debate with White, because White spanked Enyart so badly. Hard to watch.
That said i like watching the dividing line and own a few of white's books. i like his work against cults just dont like his heretical hyper calvanism.
Did you watch the video? Do you know what hyper-Calvinism is? You may disagree with Calvinism and with James White, but to describe him as a hyper-Calvinist is, quite simply, incorrect.
the man learned his theology from james white instead of the Holy Spirit. White learned from Calvin instead of the Spirit of truth. That's how error creeps into the Church.
AMEN!!!
+SaintOfYeshua777
So is free will.
I used to think so also. Not so sure any more.
We have free will. God desires all to be saved and not willing any should perish. The first mistake Calvinists make is stating that if you aren't one of them you are automatically an Arminian. Both are faulty
John Trevett Amen!