Super True Stories: The Original John Calvin (Ep. 3)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 сен 2024
- If it's true that Jesus didn't die for everybody, why do the Apostles make it sound like Jesus totally died for everybody?
Watch this super true story to find out.
“I’m a Calvinist. I’m certain about everything…except if Jesus died for me.” Lol
As a Calvinist, I know God saved me because he said so . I have his sacraments and his words. He is sovereign.
are you aware that not all Calvinists hold to Owen's limited satisfaction view?
"I'm a Calvinist, I'm certain about everything, except if Jesus died for me..."
Shots fired.
Lutherans and Arminians et al , I might be saved or not, I can't tell and whether Jesus died for me or not doesn't affect that and even if I think I am saved I could still be wrong or end up falling away.
@@Phill0old I believe once saved, always saved. Who said I was an Armenian?
@@UrsahSolar I don't believe such a thing. I believe in the preservation of the saints.
@@Phill0old Good for you, but you still assumed I'm an Armenian when I am not. You should say sorry for presuming.
@@UrsahSolar Should I? If it makes you happy, I apologise.
"I think you're confusing God with Megatron" lol
lol
Jesus loves you my friend
have a nice day
I'm a Calvinist, and I love my true Lutheran brothers and sisters in Christ. these vids are awesome.
We love y’all too! And I love Lutheran Satire, though it does bother me how hostile he is to Calvinists sometimes. I have a good friend who is a Calvinist, no doubt he is a Christian even though we disagree theologically (on things that, I think, are really just semantic differences most of the time)
@@jakobi4971 i foloow fighting for the faith, longfortruth1 and messed up church! whereever truth is proclaimed we stand united. one church one faith one baptism. as christ our lord said, those who are on the side of truth, hear MY voice 🙏 #5Solas
@@fiveSolas879What do you do with 1 corinthians 8 11, it says those for whom Christ died can still perish. I've heard some calvinists say it means temporarily falling into sin but the greek word is apollomie which means lost, totally destroyed or perish.
@@christophersnedekerhypothetical universalism and covenant theology resolve this
Oh please. You could've at least said your view of Calvinism is wrong. Sickening when people are just nice rather than a concerned more about truth and correcting people who are in error but for the sake of being liked you say things like you said
"I think you're confusing God with Megatron"
nice.
I liked what I heard a 5 point Calvinist pastor preach in a sermon when someone once asked him how to know if he was among the elect. The pastor's response was something like this: "That's easy. Get saved."
Just a teensy little problem there.😂
That monkeypox reference aged very unwell 😂.
Really, I thought it's practically prophetic! So, it aged extremely well.
Not prophetic, but I'm trying to figure out if what I have on my arms is eczema or pellagra or that thing you get with arthritis, or curiously-acquired monkey pox. There are "pox", but they came with the 1,000s of bedbug bites. If I get my Medicare Advantage Dual plan straightened out, so that I get a doctor and everything, I will probably go to one and have it checked out.
@@lindajohnson4204 monkeypox almost exclusively affects the MSM community, and is blood-borne.
I'm Arminian in theology, but I have to say it's a bridge too far to equate Calvin and Spurgeon with Westboro's Phelps.
Scott Rutherford Thanks, brother. Those WBC folks are pure nuts.
Both make God seem to glory in hatred, killing and damnation, what God's word actually says be damned, or at least stonewalled, pardon the expression.
It's not a bridge too far, and not a moment too soon. Actually, it's not equating them with Westboro, it's using hyperbole--the hyperbole of reality!--to show that the inevitable result of thinking like that, ain't good.
WBC are atheists, posing as fundies, to troll the uninformed for their own financial gain
@@MarcillaSmith Agreed!
Also, for ideological gain. A false flag operation against believing in Jesus.
"So you started a theological conclusion, and interpret the cross to fit what you already decided had to be true."
Lookin' at you, LGBT-promoters.
Hmmm...and you know nothing about Confessional Lutherans. If you did, then you would know we are not LGBT supporters. You would also know that we condemn same sex marriage, are pro life and do not ordain women. Your comment is void.
Michelle Allred i wasn't attacking confessional lutherans, i was only attacking christians that generally support the LGBTQRS.
+Jonny Lupus my apologies.
***** i guess...
And Calvinists.
“I frankly confess that even if it were possible I should not wish to have free choice given to me, or to have anything left in my own hands by which I might strive for salvation.”
― Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will
"...even if it were possible..." is the key phrase there, by the way. Though he desired it to be that way, he clearly states that is is not.
Luther’s view didn’t win out among Lutheranism. However, Lutheranism got slapped with his term
@@brady1407 wrong
@@brady1407 read the smalcald articles on repentance the website is BookofConcord.org which Luther wrote AFTER the bondage of the will, that willful open sin drives out the Holy Ghost
After Luther died, the theology of the Lutheran church was shaped by Philip Melanchthon.
I have a Calvinist brother-in-law, whom if I say to someone else, “God loves us so much He died for us,” and he overhears that, he will send me a 9000 page email that assumes I know nothing about the Bible.
If your faith is not making you any holier, there is a very very good chance you have not true faith.
“…everyone else can die of monkeypox…”. Suddenly this statement has fresh relevance.
Ha, ha! Yes
Look, you can quote Melton and Spurgeon all you want, but when you throw in the Westboro Baptist Church as some sort of actual Christian organization, it repel's me from wanting to hear what else you have to say, regardless of the validity it may or may not carry.
+Caleb Cone Was thinking the same thing. Respect^^
+Caleb Cone You are correct. It was simply an attempt to discredit some truth because it is believed by some despicable people. I suppose they could denounce the Trinity by showing the the Romans church believes it - and the Virgin Birth, too.
Well, I don't want to sound unpopular here, but well... they are Christians. To my knowledge they were baptized in a Trinitarian manner and still believed that Jesus sacrificed his life for them (to such a selfish extent that they refused to believe that God sacrificed his life for anyone else.). That's kind of all you need. Clearly, they weren't very "Christian like", but I'm afraid nobody is. For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. I'm afraid that if we were justified by our actions, we would all be surely done for.
G/Gamer - 10 months later i just want to check if you still feel that those who display nothing of the fruits of The Spirit can be called 'Christian'?
It is called Satire....
"But everyone else can die of monkeypox for all he cares."
Ope, published 11 years ago or 11 days ago?
I broke down laughing, but trying to restrain myself, considering how it is passed about...
“Well uh you see ‘world’ doesn’t mean the world it actually means the elect. We said so!”
lol. Yeah, that translation would end up making John 3:16 sound redundant!
Yes clearly world means every single individual and not something like the nations because obviously people living in ancient palestine had modern western ideals of individualism. Lets ignore the fact world is used in a few different ways throughout Johns epistle
If the the word world obviously means, as you think it should, everyone that ever lived can you please explain this verse
Romans 1 Verse 8
First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.
Clearly you think that Eskimos, Native Americans and Australian Aborigines, past , present and future were speaking about the faith of the church in Rome?
1 John 2:15-17 Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in them. 16 For everything in the world-the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life-comes not from the Father but from the world. 17 The world and its desires pass away, but whoever does the will of God lives forever.
Obviously the world means everyone that ever lived right?
Try thinking, checking usage and not saying stupid things.
@@danielomitted1867 oh but election isn't a corporate election of the church.
"Monkey Pox", this must be prophetic...
I'm a Calvinist and this is hillarious
Wow, the monkey pox reference is amazing.
@analogiest except when Calvin told Luther that he "had no grasp of the Gospel, and if he ever had it, he had clearly lost it." But yeah, total respect, otherwise...
Matt. 1:21- "She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.”
John 10:16-29- "But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep. 27 My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; 28 and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand."
If you look at everything that is said about who Jesus died for, he gave His life for His sheep, His friends, and the world, to name three. He would have all men be saved, and to come unto a knowledge of the truth. It is not the will of the Father that one of these little ones perish--Jesus. God's word says He gave His life for the world; how dare Calvinism call that a lie?
But it also says He died for His sheep and His friends. He knows that, while He would have all men be saved, not all will be saved. So it's true that while He died for all, giving all a right to call on Him to be saved, He died so that those who receive Him might have everlasting life, not so that those who refuse, all their lives, to receive Him, can do so with impunity. So in that sense, He definitely died for His sheep who hear His voice, and for His friends. It also said He died to reconcile His enemies to Himself; He came for sinners, not for the righteous. So all of those verses look at His death from different points of view, and it's not a matter of which one is true, because in God's intended meaning, they are all true. And they are compatible with each other in truth, without strain, or squinting to make them seem compatible. Only the dictates of Augustine, Calvin and followers require that you deny some of what the Bible says, supposedly to uphold the other things it says. But calling God a liar, or implying that He is by suppressing scripture that won't conform to the theology, undermines belief in the authority of all of it. It is a trap to wreck the faith of many, to which many Calvinists say, Who cares? They obviously were not of the elect.
And consider this: Jesus condemned the Pharisees for putting the traditions of men over the word of God. But what were those traditions they honored above the Bible? Not just a local tradition of washing ones hands before eating. Mainly, it was rabinnical commentary: basically, the same thing that we call theology. Theologians supposedly study the Bible to rightly divide the word of God, helping those not as gifted to understand it. But that isn't how it usually turns out. Some theologians are ambitious intellectuals who want to put some notches on their belts. Some are in search of a higher place in the scheme of things, and are basically "God makers", or "noble lie" spinners. They seek to create a God for the masses, who fits what they see as the needs of the hour, and largely in terms that please those in power, who seek to better control the people, or perhaps effect radical (or even subtle) change. These guys are essentially auditioning for a comfy, influential place in the ruler's court. They don't really believe the gospel that they give pious lip service to. So they don't fear God; they are those who have "a form of godliness", "denying the power thereof". Whoever it is who deny God's word, they certainly can't have made that choice because they tremble at God's word. If, when confronted with a choice of denying Calvin/Augustine or the Bible, they keep Augustine and suppress the Bible, they are operating out of the fear of man, or desire for advantages they can get by obeying man. The logical necessity that they claim demands that they place the reasoning of man above the world of God, cannot be true. Atheists try to pit one verse against the other because they hope to use them to undermine faith in the Bible as truth. When Calvinists choose a few prooftext verses, and suppress those which don't agree with their interpretation, the same thing is taking place. We can know that whenever theologians suppress the word of God in favor of their theology, they didn't do that for the word of God's sake, and like false prophets, we dont have to listen to them. That is what the Pharisees did, too.
@@lindajohnson4204 Well said, well done!
@@lindajohnson4204 Destruction 100
I love my many Calvie friends but this is 1000% accurate 🤣
Lol as one who afferms limited atonement I wasn't sure what to expect however I was laughing the whole way through, very nice bro very nice. I give it a ten :)
Funny you should post this. I'm reading Luther's "Bondage of the Will" and I'm not getting too much difference between him and Calvin.
I lived Arminian for a long time, but the more I read the Scriptures, the more I see of Calvinism than Arminianism. In order for an Arminian to be consistent, there's too much scripture-twisting and equivocation. Passages like Romans 9, Ephesians 1 and 2, I Peter 1:2, John 6: 44, Proverbs 16:4, and others prove to be problems for Arminians.
^Agreed. Particularly on your second sentence, except in past tense.
Good thing Lutheran doctrine and Arminianism are extremely different from each other.
But Satan doesn't serve any purpose and isn't someone God is fighting against. Arminian theology makes him way too powerful but Calvinism makes him entirely pointless. He's not even the one doing the tempting. God fashions us to be damned for his own amusement and we have no way of knowing if we win the cosmic lottery that actually secures us since God could just be deceiving us to damn more people. "God is love" quickly becomes "God is Lovecraftian" if we take this theology to its logical conclusion.
Yeah, arminianism just creates a convenient workaround for total depravity that just nullifies it
@@storba3860do you deny God's foreknowledge and that He is creator?
Hilarious! I'm not set in stone on the nature of the atonement, but the bits at the end had me laughing out loud. I've been there. I guess my question would be, why should it make a difference to us? We are to preach the gospel to the whole world. Live and preach until you drop, let God deal with the hearts, and trust that in the end he will save whom he will save. Blessings all!
11 years later the world braces for Monkey Pox... well, maybe not the whole world. 😉
"To think that my savior died for men who were or are in hell seems a supposition too horrible for me to entertain." - Charles Spurgeon
And yet, somehow, it's *not* too horrible for him to entertain the supposition that God created untold millions of people for the express purpose of throwing them into hell? That God created real people, real autonomous human beings, who never, at any point in their existence, have any hope whatsoever of being saved from eternal suffering, and locking them into that fate *unconditionally?* Calvinism is a *cancer* on the Christian faith. I thank the Lord I am in remission of that insidious disease.
And hell was made for the devil and his angels so no human needs to go to that horrible place, thank God!
NO! Why does everyone assume God created people "just to throw them into Hell?" God created people perfect to live in perfect harmony with him! That's what people had in the Garden of Eden! Just because it was only 2 people doesn't make it any less true. Had humanity chosen to obey God, they would've stayed in the Garden, but Adam and Eve chose to disobey. Paul says that all humanity was condemned in Adam's disobedience. All of us were born sinners, rebels against God. God did not "make" us that way - we (in Adam) made our race into that! God provided His Son, but Humanity rejected His Son.
At this point God would've been just to burn all Humanity in Hell, do you disagree? If you do, and you think we were born good or neutral, then you're already suffering under a heresy I won't bother to discuss here. It's been rejected since early times.
So God chose, before the foundation of the world, that He would redeem an elect group of people for himself. He would reach down and change their natures from hearts of stone to hearts of flesh, etc. And they would be called to Jesus to believe in Him. God would give them the faith required to do so, and they would believe, and He would save them. Not because they had any impetus of their own to believe, or seek Him out, but because of God's decision. For it is written, "Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God- children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God." John 1
God doesn't make people just to send them to Hell. God made people. God made them perfect in the beginning. People then cast aside that perfection and goodness to become a race of evildoers (see Genesis 6 lest you doubt) to the core. Without God's personal intervention, all would burn.
God has chosen to save some, though they do not deserve it, and not to save others as they deserve. As the Master in the parable says, "Do I not have the right to do what I want with my own money?" Can God not spend His own blood as He sees fit?
Lastly, let us consider the passage always: "Yet the Israelites say, 'The way of the Lord is not just.' Are my ways unjust, people of Israel? Is it not your ways that are unjust?" Ezekiel 18:29
"What then? Shall we try to put another meaning into the text than that which it fairly bears? I trow not. You must, most of you, be acquainted with the general method in which our older Calvinistic friends deal with this text. *"All men," say they,-"that is, some men": as if the Holy Ghost could not have said "some men" if he had meant some men. "All men," say they; "that is, some of all sorts of men": as if the Lord could not have said "all sorts of men" if he had meant that. The Holy Ghost by the apostle has written "all men," and unquestionably he means all men.* I know how to get rid of the force of the "alls" according to that critical method which some time ago was very current, but I do not see how it can be applied here with due regard to truth. I was reading just now the exposition of a very able doctor who explains the text so as to explain it away; he applies grammatical gunpowder to it, and explodes it by way of expounding it. I thought when I read his exposition that it would have been *a very capital comment upon the text if it had read, "Who will not have all men to be saved, nor come to a knowledge of the truth."* Had such been the inspired language every remark of the learned doctor would have been exactly in keeping, but as it happens to say, "Who will have all men to be saved," his observations are more than a little out of place. My love of consistency with my own doctrinal views is not great enough to allow me knowingly to alter a single text of Scripture. I have great respect for orthodoxy, but my reverence for inspiration is far greater. I would sooner a hundred times over appear to be inconsistent with myself than be inconsistent with the word of God. I never thought it to be any very great crime to seem to be inconsistent with myself; for who am I that I should everlastingly be consistent? *But I do think it a great crime to be so inconsistent with the word of God that I should want to lop away a bough or even a twig from so much as a single tree of the forest of Scripture. God forbid that I should cut or shape, even in the least degree, any divine expression.* So runs the text, and so we must read it, *"God our Savior; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth."*
--Spurgeon, "Salvation by Knowing the Truth", #1516, Metropolitan Tabernacle, London.
Predicting monkeypox 11 years in advance!
Why would any student of church history throw Spurgeon in the same basket as Westboro? What about Owen, Edwards, Augustine, Ryle, Whitefield, Henry, Knox, and others? Martin Luther himself is categorized by many scholars to be in the vein of Calvinism, especially considering his extensive defenses of the redemptive work of God against Erasmus. If you want to satirize a rigorous theological position, at least have the courtesy and sense to not include an aberrant hate group in with some of the greatest Christian theologians.
I heard Lutheran pastor Jordan Cooper say on his podcast that Luther would be a 2 point or one-and-a-half point Calvinist. And that makes for a huge division.
And their perspective is that a heterodox teaching can give rise to huge heresies and damaging perversions. So I can understand why a Lutheran would throw in WBC at the end of the list of quotes--showing a chronological devolving of sorts. Not saying that what they did is the best way for them to argue their point, though! You're right about that courtesy thing.
I am not a Calvinist, and I love Spurgeon. Have you read this? If it is too long, just read the first few hundred words! Spurgeon was "wordy". But it is worth reading at least the first part, where he deals with denials of his text, the one that assures us that God "would have all men be saved". He teaches so much that refutes Calvinism here. If you read it, be sure to click on "View this resource", and go to the end, to the letter from Mr Spurgeon at the end. Some think that he was not speaking only of his physical health. I am confident that this sermon represents the true, heart's belief of Spurgeon, before his faith was compromised by the theology of the older men who took the boy preacher under their wing.
www.spurgeon.org/resource-library/sermons/salvation-by-knowing-the-truth#flipbook/
“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them"John 6:44"And all those elected for eternal life believed"Acts 13: 48
+Joseph Nice job ignoring the verses that make it clear that whoever believes is saved. Also you make it seem like God is a hypnotist.
+Joseph Elected doesn't mean chosen for salvation before birth.
+Joseph Lutherans believe this since the Scripture teaches it. That doesn't mean Jesus didn't die for the sins of the whole world.
Meta
No actually elected doesn't mean chosen for salvation before birth but before foundation of the world
Ephesians 1:4-5
According as he hath *chosen us in him before the foundation of the world*, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:Having *predestinated us* unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, *according to the good pleasure of his will,*
Ephesians 1:11
In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:
Romans 8:29-30
For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
The word translated " predestined " in the Scriptures quoted above comes from the Greek word " proorizo " which carries the meaning of "determining before", " Order ", "decide in advance"
Quentin Langrand Hey moron? Before foundation of the Earth is before birth, before everyones birth. And sorry but I don't believe in calvinism, a doctrine made by man. And I'm sick of you calvinists posting the same verses again and again (and ignoring others) even though it's clear they don't work.
Entertaining straw man. In reality, the word "atonement" refers to a payment, a transaction of sorts. Though Christ's sacrifice is sufficient to pay for the sins of all people for all time, the payment (atonement) only takes place for those who believe (the elect). The others pay for their own sins in hell.
What Calvinists call a straw man, or a misrepresentation, is what the rest of us call "taking Calvinism to its logical conclusion."
“Are the elect only effectually called?
All the elect, and they only, are effectually called (Acts 13:48): although others may be, and often are, outwardly called by the ministry of the Word (Matthew 22:14), and have some common operations of the Spirit (Matthew 7:22, Hebrews 6:4-6); who, for their willful neglect and contempt of the grace offered to them, being justly left in their unbelief, do never truly come to Jesus Christ (John 12:38-40, Acts 28:25-27, John 6:64-65, Psalm 81:11-12).”
Westminster Larger Catechism, Question #68
Kind of awkward for you that Luther was as staunchly predestinarian as John Calvin. The fact that you succumbed to semi-pelagianism afterward doesn't mitigate this.
I read something supposedly written by Luther when he was old, years ago, but I haven't been able to find it since. He said that when he was a young student, he was all about Augustine, but after he discovered grace, that the just shall live by faith, it was out with Augustine! He was being very critical of the 'young predestination-minded Turks' (not his words), so I imagine that he heard it, and did not care much for Calvin's doctrine. He went back on a lot of _Bondage of the Will,_ too. At least he wasn't a theological Nebuchadnezzar, whose word stands forever, and he'd pretend it could not be denied or broken. He was less wrapped up with how "staunch" he came off, which I attribute to less narcissism, and more fear of God.
I'm not crazy about much of what Luther said and did, and I've found I cannot live by Lutheran doctrine, either, which calls my faith in Jesus, without accepting the Lutheran form of transubstantiation, "Antichrist". But I do love "the just shall live by faith", and have to concur with "here I stand; I can do no other", regularly. I hold out a lot more hope for Luther than the other, bloody "magisterial" reformers. I guess I just like him better, and chalk up the antisemitism, etc, to unstable emotions. His wife said he was terrible man. No clue whether she said it tongue in cheek.
I love that you reference monkey pox in this video!
Funny stuff! Adding the Westboro quote was over the top. Westboro is essentially Calivinist gone wild.
At least so far as I have seen, the primary difference between Lutheran and Calvinist teaching regarding election is the Lutheran doctrine of resistible grace vs. the Calvinist doctrine of irresistible grace. Lutherans believe all those who hear the Gospel are called by the Gospel, while Calvinists believe that only some who hear the Gospel are called.
To the Lutheran, if someone hears the Gospel and does not accept it, God has extended grace and they have rejected it.
To the Calvinist, if someone hears the Gospel and rejects it, it is because God did nothing.
To the Lutheran, if someone hears the Gospel and accepts it, God has extended grace and they have not resisted.
To the Calvinist, if someone hears the Gospel and accepts it, God has extended grace.
Therefore, the Calvinist believes God never tried with the one who is ultimately damned, while the Lutheran believes God did try, but was rejected.
The Calvinist believes the Lutheran view is a violation of God's sovereignty.
The Lutheran believes the Calvinist view is a violation of God's love.
Calvinists will quote Romans 9:19, "You will say to me then, 'Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?'"
Lutherans will quote Acts 7:51, "You men who are stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears are always resisting the Holy Spirit; you are doing just as your fathers did"
Calvinists believe God never tried with vessels of wrath and is glorified for His might and justice in their destruction.
Lutherans believe God did try with vessels of wrath and is glorified for His patience and love towards even them in addition to being glorified for His might and justice in their eventual destruction.
I think there a lot of the difference is involved with the idea of whether God would waste His efforts or blood. The Calvinists would not accept for God to waste either of these things on the non-elect, while the Lutherans would not consider either of these things being spent on the non-elect to be a waste.
It seems to me like the whole LIP of TULIP chiefly rests on the I of irresistible grace, which Lutherans reject, which is why they have at most a TU, though usually Lutherans prefer "total corruption" to "total depravity". Just the differences I observed as a Lutheran with lots of Calvinist friends.
I agree. I would add a bit after some rereading of the Formula. The focus for Lutherans is what is to be *preached* in the Evangelical Church. When Luther was trying to convince Erasmus, he did not hesitate to go the whole nine yards. But you absolutely do not see him preaching his logical opinions (about God's fore-judgement or not of Pharaoh, for example) because that would not be Law, nor Gospel, nor encouragement, nor edification, nor warning, nor anything of value to the Evangelical Congregation. What do you think? I'm happy to delete this comment if you disagree. You seem to understand the two sides better than I do.
I think you've got a good point because some seem to do harm in the teaching and arguing regarding predestination. However, I think there is some value to an understanding of unconditional election. It is like the parable of the dinner guests in Luke 14:16-24. The people who were brought in to the dinner were not brought in because they were amazing, but because the man wanted guests at his dinner. At the same time, he was not disdainful towards them at all, but was very glad to have them at his dinner. In God's plan we were saved, not because of our own merits, and so we cannot boast. However, God is very happy to have us and has prepared even more places at the dinner, so we can rejoice He will bring many more as well. Until the end of this age, we can rejoice knowing God has not only prepared us a place at His table, but has also prepared many more places at the table. Idk, that was kinda rambling, but probably because you are right and it is pretty hard to preach about predestination XD
@@gerrardthemagnificent5960 Amen!
Other excellent content aside, this is a dumb video. Perhaps it's tongue in cheek, but to lump Calvin, Spurgeon and others with Westboro Baptist nuts shows flocculent thinking. Or just unwise provocation.
It's as generous as linking Luther to Hitler.
Sadly, Luther linked himself to any Hitler to come, when he said that the Jews should be put to death. I hate it, too. Luther was a very unwise man, sometimes. I still love the nailing the theses thing, and believe the Biblical discovery, "the just shall live by faith". I hope better for Luther than I believe true of the power-mad, unrepentant murderer, Calvin.
Woah! Combining the doctrines taught puritans and the prince of preachers with those of the Westboro Baptists is a stretch!
^yeah.
They don't think its a stretch!
As a Calvinist, I know God saved me because he said so . I have his sacraments and his words. He is sovereign.
What is interesting is how void of the doctrine they are mocking this is. This presents a straw man that the Armenians can bat around. However, it never truly engages the doctrine in a reasonable, rational or reasonable manner.
Amen,their preaching Universalism,everybody's saved.How does that show God's justice?Blessings Stephen
Stephen Cellucci
You were saying about straw mam arguments???
Stephen Cellucci They NEVER said that "everybody's saved." But everybody CAN BE saved. "Whosoever will, let him come..." Blessings
Lutherans aren't armenians. Not at all. And they aren't calvinists. You know why? Because the bible doesn't tell us to rationally answer the question "Why are some saved and not others?" It tells us to be quiet and listen to what God says - those who are damned are damned because of their rejection and those who are saved are saved only by Christ's work.
Many passages demonstrate this. Paul says "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God and are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus." The two groups are both governed by "All" - so if you want to limit the "All" who are justified then you have to limit the "all" who sinned. So according to "logic" not everyone is a sinner.
Why would people in Armenia be concerned about Calvinism? Aren't most of them Eastern Orthodox?
As a Calvinist, I like The Lutheran Satire videos, but this one wasn't funny and lacked decency - to list Charles Spurgeon (among others), an honorable, faithful and godly man along side the Westboro Baptist Church as if to imply they are similar or compatriots is dishonest and a smear on the reputation of Charles Spurgeon.
this one was actually extremely funny. Maybe the funniest of them all.
The most satirical moment is when everyone realizes that luther was a calvinist
Just because he was a monergist does not mean he was a Calvinist. He quite explicitly did not agree with Calvin on limited atonement.
@AnHonestChristian - Several reasons: I'm assured of my salvation by the simple fact that I actively (not just something that happened in the past) believe the Gospel. The Spirit of God assures me through His sanctifying work, in chastising me for my sins, in bringing me to repentance & renewed faith, & a desire for new obedience. Little by little, I see the work of the triune God in my life. He gives me a hatred of sin, a love of God, His Word, the Church, & the lost.
Newsflash: Luther taught that God chose to save only some.
No, he rejected that. Luther was a Monergist, not a Calvinist.
“I’m certain about everything... except if Jesus died for me.” 😂😂😂
@AnHonestChristian - In the words of Calvin, we're all a bunch of idol factories. We're told by the Apostle John to keep away from idols. He wasn't talking to the world, but to the Church, because we all still have a passion for erecting one idol after another. Either of us can just as easily make an idol of our particular theological position, if indeed we place it above Scripture, and are not willing to be corrected by It.
I'm able to judge an obvious motive.
You know it and so do I.
Honestly, I couldn't even finish this. It's so blatantly false it's terrible. Besides, I've read Luther's Bondage of the Will. If you want to put God loving, gospel preaching Christians in with Westboro you'll have to add Luther too. Please take this down.
Because I'm quite certain that no Calvinist has ever run up against John 3:16 and come up with an explanation in the nearly 500 years that Calvinism has existed... No way... This video has finally fired the silver bullet that will forever defeat Calvinism. Brilliant! Hahahah. On a side note, as a Calvinist, this video cracked me up. Great work guys. I love a good satire.
Your theology is incoherent.
@@Leo-vr3bghow? Let’s debate
John 3:16 literally affirms limited atonement
The ones at CARM Forum told me that they were "so sick" of John 3:16, and, of course, that it's "descriptive, not prescriptive".
They might cinsuder the fact that what Jesus is describing IS a prescription. Elsewhere, in the book of Acts, it is:
Phillipian jailer: "what must I do to be saved?"
Apostles: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved".
Thats a prescription that matches the things Jesus said in John 3. But I believe Jesus meant them as a prescription for salvation, for Nicodemas, and for us.
And for those who claim, like the hyperdispensationalists do, that we cannot be saved by believing in Jesus, as in John 3:16, since it doesn't mention the cross: if we put our faith in Jesus to save us, He will get us more light, including about the cross, which we will love, and not deny.
@@tomtemple69Limited to "the world" God loves: thats who Jesus died to save.
"I think you are confusing God with Megatron" - 2:50
Best line.
@stegokitty Regarding your point about "many" vs. "all": Jesus said that those who find the gate leading to eternal life are "FEW" (Matt. 7:14) in contrast to the "MANY" who enter the gate of destruction (v.14). Jesus died for the few (the elect) and the many.
My problem is that Arminianism just doesn't work when you accept the total sovereignty of Christ, no matter how hard you shove the two together.
Christ died for all, but only those whom He calls will be saved. All other men have the opportunity, but not the motive (such is the unforgivable sin in my estimation: rejecting the salvation Christ offers).
Also, don't equate hyper-Calvinists or WBC heretics to Spurgeon or Calvin (or Luther, because Luther believed in predestination too(?)). That's just inaccurate.
The Lutheran view of predestination is best summarized the the Formula of Concord.
Calvinism is to Christianity what Reddit is to atheism.
For all the brilliance of the Lutheran Satire this one reeks of poorly understood doctrine and disingenuous accusations . One of the worst videos put out by the Lutheran Satire.
Without going into it in this comment thread (again for the purpose of keeping these types of discussions among believers), would one of my learned Lutheran brothers commenting here please do me a favor and send me a private message detailing how the Lutherans read Romans chapter 9 and do not understand its teaching on reprobation?
Wait, I'm confused here. Is Sylvia a universalist?
Believing the Bible doesnt make her a Universalist. Preferring that "John" not change the word of God to fit his preferences, for whatever temporary, earthly benefit, is not being a Universalist. In fact, "John's" salvation, itself, would be doubtful, wouldn't it? The real John the apostle was boiled in oil for the testimony of Jesus Christ, and he wouldn't have sold out God's word. He survived the hot oil, was exiled to Patmos, where he wrote the book of Revelation. God had a reason for him to survive the martyrdom of the other apostles, and even his own being burned in hot oil.
For "whosoever" shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. - Romans 10:13, KJV.. Also see Acts 2:21, John 3:15-16, 1 John 5:1, John 12:46...
It means exactly that. If one shall call upon the name of the Lord, he will be saved. It doesn't say who has the capacity to believe. Nor does it say anyone can believe.
May 2022. The monkey pox line suddenly relevant. Well, relevant if you are still led by media hysteria.
Jesus' death on the cross broke the old covenant God made with Israel, including their elect status, and gave that status to everyone who both believes in God, and repents. Jesus opened to door of salvation to all,who hearing his knock on the door of their hearts, respond in faith to his magnificent offer of divine life within. Jesus death on the cross was the greatest act of grace ever announced to man. What Jesus did on the cross was beneficial to all living, and those who have died.
Really disappointed to see our Lutheran brothers smearing John Calvin with Westboro. That's a pretty vile calumny, especially as it's done so as to give the impression that they are somehow representative of Calvinists. Maybe examine your hearts and see if that is how God would have you treat your fellow Christians, particularly those who have labored in the Protestant trenches with you for half a millennium. So uncharitable. And uncool, for such a cool channel.
@stegokitty I want you to understand that I welcome all respectful dialogue/inquiries, and I respond to snarky comments accordingly.
But all that aside, you've asked me a lot of questions and if you'd be so kind, I'd like you to answer one for me:
How do YOU, as a Calvinist, know/are assured that you are indeed one of the elect and that your sins have truly been forgiven for Christ's sake?
"I think you're confusing God with Megatron." 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂❤it so True.
We don't. We simply believe the Scriptures when it says that while we are saved by grace alone, Christ died for the world.
Honestly
The parable of the wedding banquet is a good verse in favor of Calvinism
For many are called
(As we all have a responsibility to believe unto The LORD Jesus, even when apart of the elect or not)
But few are chosen
(Few are apart of the elect)
Elect means to choose
So the elect would mean the chosen
Lutheran Satire you must realize that you used John 3:16 to argue against Limited Atonement, but failed to understand that John 3:16 is a weighty verse advocating for limited atonement. Because only those "believing" will have eternal life. So, salvation "is limited" only to those who are believing. Lol
That is true. A better clearer translation of JN 3:16 would be, "For God loved the world in this manner, that He gave His only begotten son that the believing ones should not perish but have everlasting life." Now this actually doesn't prove Limited or Particular Atonement but can be used to make a good argument for it.
The Lutheran position on this is for God so loved the world (all people) He gave His one and only Son (for the whole world) that whoever believes in him (Christians) not perish but have eternal life. The conditional clause concluding the statement ("whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life) does not modify the unconditional clause (referring to the whole world) from which it derives. Essentially, you can say Jesus was sent for so every person of the world may believe and have eternal life. It is not double predestination (connected with limited atonement), it's single predestination. It only points in one direction.
Only those believing having eternal life says nothing about whether Jesus died for those who won't believe. Jesus goes on to explain "the condemnation:" that "light has come into the world, and MEN preferred darkness because their deeds were evil."
This next part of John 3 can be confusing unless you hold strictly to the word of God (and don't take refuge against the words in theological hearsay explanations we've been told), so just consider that Jesus has clearly said that people are condemned because _they_ preferred darkness. Did Jesus not say that the condemnation was because _men_ preferred darkness, rather than the light that has come into the world? So, that means something. Why would we want to cover that 1st-person, from the Son of God, truth, with theology we received from some theologian who may or may not have had an agenda to subvert the truth?
If Peter said that Jesus bought the condemned false teachers, they are both condemned AND atoned for by Jesus. If He bought them, He atoned for them, and His atonement was not limited to those who would end up being saved. It must be true that God would have all men be saved, and to come into a knowledge of the truth; and that it is not His will that any perish, but come to repentance; and that it is not the will of the Father that one of these little ones perish. If those are true, then God must not be worried that this undermines His sovereignty, or lordship is a more Biblical word without the baggage. His lordship is not threatened by His desire to save people. If God does what He will, then the Father sending Jesus to bear the sins of the world was apparently what He would do, and what He did do. There's no need to protect God's sovereignty or lordship from the Bible.
John 3:16 does just the opposite. It is devastating to see how determined this ugly theology is to deny the love of God and His willingness to save. You gut John 3 of the good news, so willing you are to make God's love small, and to eliminate the way of salvation. Even if this evisceration of John 3 was true, it still parallels the verse in Acts where the Phillipian jailer asks "What shall I do to be saved?":
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved..."
Notice that Paul affirmed that there was something the man could _do_ to be saved, and implied that it was necessary that He do it. In John 3, Jesus says that, like when Moses lifted the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of man be lifted up, that whosoever believes on Him shall be saved. When Moses lifted up the serpent, the promise of God was that whoever looked upon the serpent would recover from their snakebites and live. Jesus said that just as Moses lifted up the serpent, so must He be lifted up, so that whosoever believes in Him might have eternal life. That comparison clearly implies that a person was responsible for whether they looked on the serpent or not, and likewise, whether they believe on Jesus or not. In fact, Jesus goes on to say that "the condemnation" is that light has come into the world, and MEN prefered darkness because their deeds were evil. But we all have evil deeds, and the tendency to run from God because of them--just like Adam, whom God sought out in his hiding place. After all, ALL have sinned. But John 3 goes on to say that there are those who "do truth". Would they not be those who "received the love of the truth, that they might be saved"? Why all this emphasis on _receiving_ (in John 1, for instance), if there is nothing they can do to receive or refuse to? Why say that there are some who "DO truth"? They come to the light that has come into the world, that it may be clearly seen (by man or God? Obviously, by God!) that THEIR deeds are "wrought in God"! And lest anyone accuse Jesus of talking about self-righteous ones, which He could never bless, in the parable of the publican and the Pharisee, it is the man who wouldnt even lift hus eyes unto heaven, but veat his breast and cried "God have mercy on me" who comes to the light. The Pharisee hides himself from the light, through his self-righteousness. Jesus would never condone an inversion of that, yet in John 3, those who do truth (like the publican!) come to the light that it might be clearly seen that THEIR deeds are wrought IN God!
@@thechristiancowboy6967 To believe in Jesus, that belief must have a beginning. This cannot mean those who just happen to notice that they passively "believe in Jesus", like someone who was raised in church and notices that they kind of believe in that which they heard taught every Sunday in their lives growing up. It means to actively put our faith in Him to save us.
"I think you´re confusing God with Megatron". OOF!
@AnHonestChristian - It's all about God's grace. I'd have none of those things if it weren't for God's grace. God gave me the gifts of repentance & faith, & continuation therein. As the hymn says "My hope is built on nothing less than Jesus' blood and righteousness." The Scriptures declare that those who trust in Christ are saved.
Probably a better way to put it is that the producer knows that Jesus died to save him (since He died to save all of Adam's seed); but he does not know whether Christ's death will avail to deliver him or anyone else in particular from condemnation.
You know by faith that He has promised to save you, if you believe, and you are believing, putting your faith in Him, that it may be "clearly seen" by Him, that you are trusting Him to save you. You are doing it; He is crediting you, like Abraham, because you believed God. But it was "wrought in God", and you don't have anymore sense of pride about it, than the publican who beat his breast, and said "God be merciful to me!"
Cookey77: You need to understand the context of Luther's "Bondage." He is writing against an Arminian named Erasmus, and therefore, is stressing the election of God and divine monergism. However, if you read more of Luther elsewhere, it is obvious that he did not believe in double predestination. He believed that when a man is saved, it is God's doing, and if a man is condemned, it is man's doing. He never tried to explain this paradox, but merely confessed it, for the Bible says so.
Huh! That's what I believe and I'm not a Luthern or Calvinist. Universal atonement, but only given upon faith in Christ.
@@AndyZach
Not a very universal atonement then
If the unbelieving aren’t included in that atonement
"I think you're confusing God with Megatron."
That last line is classic!
Just like the Westminster Confession ch.18 stumbles all over itself looking for infallible assurance while knowing the decree just may be otherwise.
My goodness... this is so true, you guys are geniuses!!!
It's stranger. Luther himself believed in Gods Election. But the denomination doesn't
*Clears throat strawman *clears throat
The strawman is neck deep in this one.
I mean, it's satire. He isn't going to take the actual arguments of the position to make fun of it, he is going to take the position and reduce it to the absurd to make fun of it. That;s how satire is done.
@@pipsdontlie3031 Except all his best videos here try to accurately (though humorously) portray the view they satire. Why is this one different?
oracleoftroy This is basically an accurate portrayal. It is made to be ridiculous for comedic effect but as I said that’s how his videos are typically done.
I really don't like responding to comments on youtube because there's not enough space and I they don't seem to show up in order. So I've posted a response to some complaints on my blog.
thehighmidlife.blogspot.com/
Thank you for your reply. So I want to make sure I get this right. We cannot know if God is sad for all eternity because that is not revealed in His word. It is one of those questions that has to be answered when we see Him. Thanks again and have a great day.
I'm not sure how this comment comes from the video, but I do know joy is a fruit of the Spirit, so God is joyful for all eternity.
Even if all us Calvinist's capitulated and said, yes Christ died for everyone who lived, is living and will live, we would also have to say Christ died for the majority of mankind to no benefit, isn't this wonderful??????? Yes, John 3:16 carried to it's logical conclusion is that Christ died for the elect, but what we say is Jesus death broke the bounds outside of the people of God (the Jews) and extended to the Gentiles (other nations) also. John 11:52 " and not only for the Nation, but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad"
There was a benifit. That benifit was giving them the ability to choose whether they would have faith in Jesus. The Gospel is the free gift of God that we have to accept.
+Ikemeitz If you believe God has infallible exhaustive foreknowledge of future events, you are still left with a problem. If God infallibly knows someone is not going to believe and reject the Gospel for what purpose was the atonement for him? What of people that never heard the Gospel?
+Richard Moore God doesn't have foreknowledge b/c NOTHING is fore to Him. You are confusing Sempiternality w/ Tempiternality. This distinction means that God lives in an infinite & eternal moment, it not only is w/o beginning & end but has no other kinds of divisions as well. I mean he lives in an ever present & unchanging now. He neither looks back or forward. Long before Calvin, or St. Paul for that matter, pagan philosophers proved that an eternal regression is a logical impossibility. You & your Calvin are anthropomorphizing God. This is what happens when you insist on getting your theology from a French lawyer.
Way to go "Half-way Papist Sissy Baby". LOL! From an 'All the Way Papist Sissy Baby'. Good job on this video!
"God is sovereign" is not a conclusion, per se, but a presupposition for many truth claims of the Bible. To say that Calvinists use this to do "dumb theology" is a classic example of a strawman argument. Do Lutherans not believe in God's sovereignty? Heaven forbid (I hope)! So to answer the basic problem of people going to Hell despite Christ's dying for them by saying that people simply choose to go to Hell is a classical Arminianist argument. You can't have it both ways.
"Master who bought them" does not necessarily mean that these false teachers are saved because Peter goes on to say, "For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment handed on to them." So Peter seems to be referring to their mere intellectual ascent to the death of Jesus Christ for their sins, not an effectual calling onto salvation by the Holy Spirit. What is more, if you want to interpret 2 Pet 2:1 "as is" then you would have to interpret 2 Pet 3:9 in the same way and thus make the erroneous conclusion that all are coming to repentance.
I think perhaps Matthew 22:14 is being used out of context here. Jesus was speaking to the Jews of how they rejected and murdered the Great King's servants thus leading to God's estimation of them being unworthy of the invitation. The same applies to the highways and biways but instead of being invited based on a previous relationship with the Great King, this time the wedding guests - both good and evil - must be clothed in righteousness. So the mystery that Christ's death is available to "whosoever believes in Him" yet "no one can come to the Father except those that He has drawn near" still applies.
Again, the passage in 1 TIm 2:4 is being taken out of context. Paul just got through telling Timothy to be aware of false teachers in the church who were teaching things from the Law based on their own perverse interpretations, misleading some to believe that one had to be super-righteoous in order to inherit the kingdom of God. Paul says that this teaching is nonsense, using himself as the exemplar of sinners - having once violently persecuted the church - whom the gospel of Jesus Christ saved. So then, it follows that Paul would exhort Timothy to pray for all men without exception because the gospel is for everybody, not just the "righteous". Again, you are in danger of falling into Universalism. Be careful here.
So if nobody responds to your erroneous claims, that's fine, but as soon as somebody has anything substantial to say in response to you we've somehow proven you right? What the hell is that, Patrick? Are you saying that you're a little Lutheran girl in the seventh grade just expressing how wonderful your lock-in was, Patrick? I hardly think so, Patrick. I know, who're you trying to fool, Patrick? Come on, Patrick, you can do better than that. Patrick.
The Doctrine of Limited Atonement was not invented by John Calvin anymore than Sola Fide was invented by Martin Luther.
Tertullian (A.D. 200): “Christ died for the salvation of His people…for the church.”
Irenaeus (A.D. 180): “He came to save all, all, I say, who through Him are born again unto God, infants, and little ones, and children, and young men, and old men…Jesus is the Savior of them that believe; but the Lord of them that believe not. Wherefore, Christ is introduced in the gospel weary…promising to give His life a ransom, in the room of, many.”
Eusebius (A.D. 330): “To what ‘us’ does he refer, unless to them that believe in Him? For to them that do not believe in Him, He is the author of their fire and burning. The cause of Christ’s coming is the redemption of those that were to be saved by Him.”
That last one even suggests double predestination. The fact that we do not see major controversy over this doctrine in the Early Church shows that it was ubiquitous.
mason bruza No one doubts that Christ died for the salvation of his people. Those opposed to the doctrine of Limited Atonement are not at all suggesting that Christ did not die for his own! However, the doctrine of Limited Atonement goes further than what the scriptures and what the early church fathers taught, namely, that Christ died 'only' for the elect, and no one else. However, it should be noted that even John Calvin himself taught that Christ died not only for the elect, but for the rest of the world. This does not make those who hold to unlimited atonement universalists, since it is an error to equate Christ's death on the cross with automatic sanctification of all whom he died for.
Limited Atonement is more nuanced than a lot of people think.
There is a sense in which you could say Jesus died for each and every individual. Reformed Christians will affirm that the death of Christ was "sufficient for all", but the death of Christ accomplished exactly what it was intended to accomplish.
The death and resurrection of Christ didn't just make men "saveable", but actually secured salvation for His people.
The root of the matter is that God is not a failure. He intended to save people from every nation and that is exactly what He did.
mason bruza And here's the kicker. Not all Reformed Christians think so, unless you wish to exclude the Lutherans and Arminians from the category of "Reformed" and restrict its meaning to "Five-Point Calvinists" whom the Father of Reformation himself would strongly condemn.
It is strange to speak of the sufficiency of Christ's death for all if you believe in the penal substitution theory of atonement, as though Christ did indeed take the actual sins of the elect upon himself and died for those sins alone. However, that is the least of my concerns, as you are here asserting what is not scriptural, for nowhere in scripture does it assert that the death of Christ itself was for securing salvation for anyone, or that would make Christ's forgiveness of people before his death meaningless.
To say that Christ has died for the sins of not only the elect, but also the whole world, does not say that God is a failure, because we do not first presume that God sought to accomplish through the death of Christ the securing of salvation for the elect.
There has always been the distinction between Lutheran and Reformed. That was the first division among Protestants.
The synod of Dort clearly condemned the Remonstrants as being outside the realm of Reformed Theology. Note that "Reformed" and "Protestant" have two different meanings historically.
That being said, one can hold to indefinite Atonement and be Reformed. Read the canons of Dort. They lay out the Reformed view pretty clearly.
The Bible most certainly teaches that the death of Christ was intended to secure salvation....
"he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify[f] for the purification of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God." - Hebrews 9:12-14
We see clearly that Christ secured "an eternal redemption" with his blood. It is abundantly clear whom this eternal salvation was secured for:
"Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her"
- Ephesians 5:25
"And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me." - Galatians 2:20
I could post many statements like this. I know that these verse don't prove that Jesus died ONLY for the Church, but Christ dying for the Church is certainly the focus of a lot of the NT.
However, I think it is clear as day in John 10 that there are some people for whom Christ did NOT die for.
"I came that they may have life and have it abundantly. I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep." John 10:10-11
"The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me, but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. " John 10: 25-29
Jesus clearly identifies that it is the sheep that he lays down his life for. He then just as clearly states that the Pharisees are not His sheep, so we are forced to conclude that Jesus did not die for at least this group of Pharisees. I also think this passage points to the definite purpose of the Atonement.
Scripture is abundantly clear that Jesus died for the purpose of giving His people eternal life.
Apparently you aren't a very good Lutheran considering he also believed in limited atonement. I wonder why the "calvinist" John didn't mention the foolishness of creating Doctrines through prooftexting less clear language in Biblical text instead of understanding the ambiguous texts by the wider narrative and teaching which is filled with clear support of his calvinism? Because then he wouldn't be a strawman!
There's a book that defends the doctrine of mans inability to have saving faith by his own power. It's called, 'The Bondage of the Will." I can't quite remember the name of the author. I think it was Martin something. Last name started with an L, if I remember right. Looker? Looter? Anyway, men can't choose God, that's what this Martin guy was on about. He was pretty worked up that God has to choose specific men, and then God has to give them faith so they can be saved. There might be a connection between this Marty guy's idea, and the idea that Jesus only died for those God chose to give faith to. Just thinking out loud here. I sure wish I could remember that guy's last name so I could tell it to the Lutheran Satire people.
deezynar Maybe you're confusing the doctrine of Limited Atonement with the doctrine of Irresistible Grace.
Dante Ting If man is really spiritually dead, as the bible, and Luther both say, then God has to do the choosing, and the saving. Since Jesus himself said not all will be saved, and only those who "belong to Him" are saved, then it's clear that God did not pick everyone. The atonement is limited only to those who God picked before He created the universe. It's a package deal. In short, Luther was a Calvinist, but he'd die if someone said that to him. The truth is, both Luther, and Calvin, agreed that Augustine had the correct view of scripture on this subject.
deezynar Arminians also say that man is spiritually dead, as we also affirm Total Depravity, and we also say that God has to do the choosing and the saving. However, both classical Arminians and Lutherans would disagree with you that the atonement is limited only to those whom God picked before He created the universe, as the atonement is not to be confused with justification. It is utterly wrong to call Luther a Calvinist on this basis alone, since, for example, Luther utterly condemned those who preach the Calvinist doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints:
"Some fanatics may appear (and perhaps they are already present, such as I
saw with my own eyes at the time of the uprising) who hold that once
they have received the Spirit or the forgiveness of sins, or once they
have become believers, they will persevere in faith even if they sin
afterwards, and such sin will not harm them. They cry out, “Do what you
will, it matters not as long as you believe, for faith blots out all
sins,” etc. They add that if anyone sins after he has received faith
and the Spirit, he never really had the Spirit and faith. I have
encountered many foolish people like this and I fear that such a devil
still dwells in some of them." (Smalcald Articles)
It is mind-boggling to call Luther a Calvinist when he rejected three out of the five points of Calvinism. On that, Arminians might as well be called Calvinists too.
Dante Ting Luther is right to be outraged by the idea that people can continue to sin without any conscience, or consequences. Calvin did not teach that a saved person can sin up a storm and count on going to heaven. He taught that the saved will persevere, and will sin less over time. They will never stop sinning, but they will be remorseful for their sins, and strive, with God's help, to sin less. You will have to explain to me the difference between atonement, and justification, as you think of them. When God saves a person, they are made right with Him because He has replaced their sins with Christ's righteousness. Making distinctions in meaning is proper, but making distinctions in timing, or application is spurious. God saves only those He chose before He created.
deezynar Luther wasn't outraged by the idea that people can continue to sin without any conscience or consequences. Luther was outraged that certain people were teaching what we now call "once-saved-always-saved" theology, i.e., the Calvinist doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. Correct me if I am wrong, but Calvinism holds that the elect can never fall away, and that if one does fall away, that person was never truly the elect in the first place.
As for why both Arminians and Lutherans reject the conflation of atonement and justification, Arminians hold that election is conditional, in that while God does indeed save only those whom He chose before He created, it is conditional upon God's foreknowledge of who will believe and have faith in Christ Jesus, thus the offer of salvation is indeed for all of mankind, but only those who believe and have faith receive the gift of salvation; Lutherans hold that even the elect can lose their salvation if they so foolishly make shipwreck of their faith (per the words of Paul, and the warnings of Jesus, and the warnings in the epistle to the Hebrews, etc.), and no different from when Israel was chosen by God as a nation, but some among them who broke their covenant with God are cut off from His people.
Yeah.... Missed it on this one. Made a house of straw.
Calvinists don't know if Jesus died for them and Lutherans know that Jesus died for them, but they don't know if they are going to Heaven or not.
In a previous Lutheran Satire video, the answer to the question "Do you believe in once saved always saved?" was "No."
Because of apostasy
@stegokitty Yes, I've been very wrong. I was raised a Southern Baptist and I'm now a Confessional Lutheran. Jesus opened my mind to believe the Scriptures (Luke 24:45). Yes, the Church historically interprets Romans 5 "as universal atonement," but NOT universalism. I think you're implying that I'm rejecting Sola Scriptura (not Sola Fide), which I'm not, as the historic interpretation gives credence to my argument.
So you have Universal Atonement and Jesus paid the price for every sin of every person ever? And then you have an unforgiveable sin and also God sending sinners to eternal punishment for their sins. Mmmm not very consistent is it? If it is paid for then it is paid for, a Judge can't sentence you for a crime which has already been atoned for without being unjust.
So what exactly are they condemned for? Sin? Can't be because Jesus already atoned for it all. Unbelief? Can't be because unbelief is a sin and is already covered in the universal atonement.
And where does that leave the sin that cannot be forgiven? You shouldn't even pray for that to be forgiven yet you say it is already atoned for?
I'll stick with the atonement being for God's people just as it was in the Old Covenant, different people same principle.
Jesus in John 10:11
“I lay down my life for the sheep.”
Jesus in John 10:26
“You do not believe me, because you are not of my sheep.”
Everyone except Universalists believes in an atonement that is limited to some degree. I prefer to call it a definite atonement, however.
"God shall be all in all"
If Jesus' death atones 100% for sin then you would logically have to believe that every person will go to heaven.
No, you wouldn't. Just because some people are lost doesn't mean they never had the chance to be saved. There's a big difference between someone who CAN be saved and someone who WILL be saved.
oh, wow. M-Pox reference 11 years ago? good work!
So was Spurgeon a univeralist? Don't think so. He just rejected the clear teaching of Scripture about the universal atonement because he commendably wanted to teach the sola gratia, but mistakenly believed that God's truth has to be logically consistent to human beings
www.spurgeon.org/resource-library/sermons/salvation-by-knowing-the-truth#flipbook/11
What then? Shall we try to put another meaning into the text than that which it fairly bears? I trow not. You must, most of you, be acquainted with the general method in which our older Calvinistic friends deal with this text. "All men," say they,-"that is, some men": as if the Holy Ghost could not have said "some men" if he had meant some men. "All men," say they; "that is, some of all sorts of men": as if the Lord could not have said "all sorts of men" if he had meant that. The Holy Ghost by the apostle has written "all men," and unquestionably he means all men. I know how to get rid of the force of the "alls" according to that critical method which some time ago was very current, but I do not see how it can be applied here with due regard to truth. I was reading just now the exposition of a very able doctor who explains the text so as to explain it away; he applies grammatical gunpowder to it, and explodes it by way of expounding it. I thought when I read his exposition that it would have been a very capital comment upon the text if it had read, "Who will not have all men to be saved, nor come to a knowledge of the truth." Had such been the inspired language every remark of the learned doctor would have been exactly in keeping, but as it happens to say, "Who will have all men to be saved," his observations are more than a little out of place. My love of consistency with my own doctrinal views is not great enough to allow me knowingly to alter a single text of Scripture. I have great respect for orthodoxy, but my reverence for inspiration is far greater. I would sooner a hundred times over appear to be inconsistent with myself than be inconsistent with the word of God. I never thought it to be any very great crime to seem to be inconsistent with myself; for who am I that I should everlastingly be consistent? But I do think it a great crime to be so inconsistent with the word of God that I should want to lop away a bough or even a twig from so much as a single tree of the forest of Scripture. God forbid that I should cut or shape, even in the least degree, any divine expression. So runs the text, and so we must read it, "God our Savior; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth."
Limited Atonement is complicated. God knows what will happen in the future, and thus He knows who will be saved. He elects/ chosses those who will choose Him, and DOES NOT choose people randomly. So, since God knows who is going to be saved, he chooses them before they choose Him. Meaning, Christ can only save the elect, in other words, Christ can only save those who are going to be saved. And that is possible for everyone, but will oinly happen to the elect. It is very complicated, and I am sorry if I could not explain this. However, do not tell this to people who aren't Christian, because it is too complicated and then they won't convert just saying they are not elect.
“This teaching will last forever. Especially on internet message boards where 5-Point Calvinist Grad Students will fire off condescending 4,000 word responses to 7th grade Methodist girls who just wanted to say how much they enjoyed their youth group lock-in.”
If Christ truly died to pay the penalty for every person's sins then why do any go to hell?
Funny, except WBC are Hypercalvinists, not Calvinists. Important distinciton.
voted4bush Not really. When you intimate the intent of the atonement wasn't unlimited, and that election is based not on a choice we make to obey God, then you're twisting the Bible and bastardizing the gospel. Predestination is necessarily double predestination, whether you have the guts to say it like the WBC or not.
You are either Calvinist or not. Don't try to sugarcoat or water down what Jean Cauvin actually did and wrote in Geneva. Lately I've been reading some of his commentaries on the Bible, especially passages where I know the real meaning and/or the back story. Cauvin's "insight" is truly astonishing and jaw dropping. He mis-translates, mis-interprets, twists passages, connects passages that are unconnected. Where he didn't have a passage to mold to his liking, he just pulls stuff from thin air and writes it like it came from scripture. Its unreal but if you are ignorant yourself you cannot detect what is lies or what is truth(in its proper context). I'll stop now as I could go on for hours. Shedding your ignorance takes work and time, no substitute. #1 priority is to pray for right teaching and right teachers while avoiding false. If you're sincere God will lead you as He sees proper, this I can attest to and He has not let me down. Its been amazing to have the Bible come alive with meaning, exciting actually.
It's really a distinction without a difference. Hyper calvinism just carries the philosophy (and it is a vain philosophy) to its logical conclusion.
Baltic Hammer like John Nelson Darby.
Elwood M. Buel Exactly. I have maintained that position for years. Spot on!
@AnHonestChristian - I've answered it. The fact that I ACTIVELY BELIEVE; that the fruit of the Spirit is present (though certainly not perfect); that I have love of Christ, of His Word, of His Church, of the lost, IS proof. The unregenerate do not have these.
Arminian here. Good video, so much funny! That said, it isn't quite fair to bring in the Westboro group. They are hypercalvinists, but they are also a tiny fringe group who don't represent much anyone.
Limited Atonement is not so much an issue of sovereignty as justice. "Toplady put it this way: Justice cannot payment twice demand, first at my bleeding surety's hand, and then again at mine." God cannot exact payment from Christ for my sin on the cross, then later demand it from me in hell and remain true to His just nature. That would be requiring a double payment. Since justice requires that all whose sins were atoned for be saved yet not all people are saved, the inescapable conclusion is that not everyone's sins were atoned for.
+JRT5573 One shouldn't assume that God's justice (eternal and divine) works the same way as the United States Constitution (finite and manmade). Show me where in the Bible that it says "justice requires that all whose sins were atoned for be saved". Also, please explain why "whole world" doesn't actually mean "whole world".
+Tara Lieb A You Tube thread does not really provide sufficient space to fully answer. but here is a short answer concerning jusitce. I hope it suffices:
My thoughts regarding the justice of God in salvation are not derived from the US Constitution but from the Scriptures themselves. Also, nearly all of us have a sense of what justice is because God has written his law on the hearts of all people. (Romans 2)
In Romans 3.25, Paul set forth justice as a central concern in the atonement when he wrote that Christ was set forth as a propitiation in order to declare His justice. (Keep in mind, that in the Greek of the New Testament, justice and righteousness are the same word) Paul was looking at this matter from the other side of the equation, saying that justice would not let him declare us righteous (justify us) apart from satisfying the demands of justice against our sin in a substitutionary sacrifice. The mirror image of that truth is that God cannot satisfy the demands of justice against our sin in a substitutionary sacrifice then NOT justify us. That is why it is written that were a justified through His blood. (Romans 5.9)
So, all for whom the blood was shed are justified.
+Tara Lieb
Regarding the phrase "whole world:" Here are two examples in which the same Greek words are used yet the meaning is certainly not that every individual in the world is included:
We know that we are from God, and the whole world lies in
the power of the evil one. (I John 5.19) This is from the very same book in which it is said that Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world. But, we can be certain that not everyone in the world lies in the power of the evil one, for believers are not under his power. So, whole world does not have to mean every individual in it.
First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is proclaimed in all the world. (Romans 1.8) Even though the translators used "all" instead of "whole" it is the same Greek word as is found in 1 John. We can be certain that not every individual person in the entire world knew about the faith of the Roman believers. So "whole world" does not necessarily mean, "everyone in the world." In fact, it can refer to a rather limited number of people.
John's point in 1 John 2.2 is not that Christ is the propitiation for every individual's sin but he is the propitiation for the sins of individuals from all over the world. In his book of Revelation, he described it as a people from every kindred, tongue, tribe and nation. The Jews (and John was one) had though that Messiah (called Christ in the NT) was only for the Jews and that His work applied only to the Jews. John corrects that by saying Jesus is Messaiah for people from all over the earth.
+JRT5573 Everyones sins were atoned for so your conclusion in escapable.
+MetaKnight964 If everyone sins were atoned for, then everyone shall be saved in the end. It is our sins which separate us from God. If everyone's sins have been put away, then no one is separated from God. In the bIble, atonement refers to a sacrifice that puts away wrath or "reconciles." If Christ's atoning work was for everyone, then there is no wrath - and thus no hell- for anyone. There are some who believe this, but it (universalism)is not a Scriptural doctrine..
The real question is not what John should write, but what did Jesus say?
@infinity8ball
Westboro proudly has the TULIP sign at the front of their altar. Want to try again?
And John 10? Do you like ripping things out of their context? Bet you do the same with Romans 9 also?
John 10 has to do with Jesus describing what a true Shepherd is versus a false, and that He's willing to die for His sheep while the hireling is not. It's also as a judgment against the Pharisees who thought they were sheep of God, but He's telling them they are not.
Imagine being so self absorbed and deluded that you believe a great being created you, but you have sovereignty over them, and not the other way around.
I am what you would call a Calvinist and I thoroughly enjoy these videos. But this.... if this isn't a strawman I don't know what is.
Jesus prays in John 17:9 before he goes to the cross, "I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are yours." NKJV.
Also, saying that all Calvinists believe in 'double predestination' is like saying that all cats love water. Just take the time to talk to some REAL confessional Reformed Presbyterians and the like, and actually listen to what they have to say, not the angry internet posts of fresh-out-of-college 'Calvinist' seminarians who have barely begun to understand the Reformed faith.
StephenTheNerfGuy Jesus' prayer was for his disciples, not for all believers for all time. Perhaps you can shed some light on the verses brought up in the video.
One of the nice things about Calvin is that he wrote multiple commentaries throughout his life dealing with every single verse in the Bible. It may be instructive to peruse one or two of his commentaries and see what he has to say about the passages being referenced here. Sometimes you find out about key distinctions in terminology that lead an actual Calvin to a different line of argument than a caricature, although I suppose you can hope for something that's easily satirized....I wouldn't count on it though.