Absolutely! Really appreciated Dave's concern on the matter and willingness to speak out even though he got a lot of negativity from it. Kinda the reason we did the video is to show there are answers to the bullies.
43:10 I remember hearing Paul Washer back in the mid 2000's and I was hooked. His passion for Christ, his compassion for the lost and his zeal were infectious. As I've gotten older though, he becomes more and more frustrating to me. I don't understand how he can believe like a Calvinist and yet preach what he does. Either he is lying about his experience, or he's deceived. The double speak, and confusion is astounding. In his "Shocking Youth Message" he says things like "I'll preach as a dying man to dying men." I thought they were dead, not dying. Then he says "There is only one thing that gave me a sleepless night. There is only one thing that troubled me through all the morning, and that is this; within 100 years the great majority of people will possibly be in hell." Why would he be troubled? If in 100 years the great majority of people in that building were in Hell, it would be because it pleased God to do so. According to Calvinism, God didn't love them, God didn't want them, and it pleased God to give them an evanescent grace, to deceive them into thinking they were saved when they were not. If you believe in Calvinism, why would you be troubled for people God does not want?
@@abjoseck9548 I think it's clear just as the challenge with the second brother in the prodigal son story, that the self righteous entitlement attitude is the heart of the matter.
@@Once-lost, "self righteous entitlement attitude is the heart of the matter.", is not really the heart of the matter Bro, BUT the inevitable effect of a religious view of man/men who failed to grasp the Sovereign power of God to decide what's best for Him & Him alone! The Christian construction of reality is theocentric, not anthropocentric!
A consistent Calvinist will have to agree that the only reason one disagrees with their theology, is because the Lord wills it so - He orchestrates the whole debate for His good pleasure on their view. They may try to argue that they are not "determinists" or "hard determinists" - but when you follow the logic, it always goes there in the end - it has to - and it's political jargon to argue otherwise. "You are morally responsible as a free agent, but your will is in bondage to sin so that you cannot choose without God intervening (if He feels like it); and if He does - you will believe and cannot choose otherwise" - Translation: Determinism.
@@abjoseck9548 If it's not logical, it's not reasonable - and likely not true. Truth corresponds to reality. All real-life decisions should be based off logic and reason, primarily. One's theology doesn't have to be logical, or reasonable, but then it's not worth arguing - it's subjective..
Thanks for the reply, although defaulting to labeling the opposing view to simply be Arminianism is not a good tactic or strategy. I suggest working through the conversation with grace as the Lord Jesus encouraged us all to do through His word. My main question to you based on your response as I'm not sure if you watched the video is, how can a dead person as TULIP teaches "do anything" when they are dead. A dead person isn't lost, they are dead.
Jesus had many things to say while on earth, and none of it was pro TULIP. In Matthew 7:17, Jesus said, "If any man wills to do His will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself." John 7:17. Jesus is saying here that anyone can desire to do God's will. In John 3:16, Jesus says that God loves the whole world and whosoever believes will be saved. Jesus said in Luke that He desired to gather all Israel, but they didn't want Him to gather them. Not that they could not, but that they would not. "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!" Luke 13:34 Jesus consistently taught man's ability to choose and accountability in their choices. Jesus taught that all humanity are invited to receive His forgiveness. His teachings consistently and continually were the antithesis of TULIP.
@@flynnhuseby3431 Our Lod Jesus Christ in John 10:26 told the unbelieving Jews "You do not believe in me because you are not of my sheep" Note that we are his sheep before we believe in Him. Our Lord Jesus Christ preached Limited Atonement when he stated that he came only for the Lost sheep of the House of Israel(Matt 15:24). All Born Again Christians are that Lost Sheep of the House of Israel as is clear from Gal 6:16 Our Lord Jesus Christ taught Reprobation in Mark 4:11-12 where He clearly states that He does wish to Save or Convert everyone.;
@@franciscusgomarus5086 Hi Franciscus. Context kills Cavlinism. Just keep reading.... Mark 4:11-12... then goes on to say 13 Then Jesus said to them, “Don’t you understand this parable?" ... So If the disciples were elect... why did they not understand?
How do we strike a balance between the polarities of an "arrogant Calvinist critic" (inclusive of various varieties) at one end and a "boastful Arminian critic" (inclusive of various stripes) at the other end? Can we resolve this?
Yea, by calling each out ;) Thankfully, I am neither! 1 Corinthians 3:4 - "For when one says, “I am of Paul,” and another, “I am of Apollos,” are you not carnal?"
Thanks for dropping by and saying hi! The name itself is a good start, but if that isn't enough, look at Calvin himself and his reliance on man: "Augustine is so wholly within me, that if I wished to write a confession of my faith, I could do so with all fullness and satisfaction to myself out of his writings." "This is why one finds that every four pages written in the Institutes of the Christian Religion John Calvin quoted Augustine" Calvin, John. A Treatise on the Eternal Predestination of God. in Calvin, John (1987). Calvin's Calvinism. Translated by Henry Cole. Grandville, MI: Reformed Free Publishing Association. p. 38
@@abjoseck9548 I'm confused how this is hard to understand when your question revolves around a man... 1 Corinthians 3:4 - "For when one says, “I am of Paul,” and another, “I am of Apollos,” are you not carnal?"
There is a guy on RUclips that exposes false teachers and false doctrines by going to the Word, He does a great job, I won’t mention his name. I graciously asked him why he won’t expose the biggest false teacher and monster John Calvin. His response was that I was mistaken John Calvin was not a false teacher nor was he a monster. The guy that goes to scripture to prove present day false teachers has a huge blind spot when it comes to Calvin. Thank you gentlemen for speaking out.
Indeed everyone wears certain blinders, it's unfortunate but true do to the matters of the heart. I pray we all can encourage one another to die daily and trust in the sufficiency of God and His Word to clear the weeds out of our lives!
Sb@31:42, "It's Martin Luther's 5 SOLAS..." Who told you that? Absolutely wrong Sir. The 5 Solas did not come from ML, it was a late development of the theology of the Reformed faith in a simplified fashion, maybe circa the 19th Century...
"The five solas form the nucleus of the evangelical faith. They not only capture the gospel of Jesus Christ and explain how that gospel takes root in the sinner, but they also define where the authority of that gospel resides and to what end that gospel is preached and proclaimed. Although the phrase “five solas” may be more recent in its usage, the concepts are rooted in the 16th century Reformation. These five solas distinguished Reformers like Martin Luther, Philip Melanchthon, John Calvin, and so many others from the teachings of Rome. " www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/the-five-solas/#:~:text=Although%20the%20phrase%20%E2%80%9Cfive%20solas,from%20the%20teachings%20of%20Rome.
@@Once-lost , strictly speaking, the "5 Solas" concepts can be traced stretching back to the 14th century, culled from the ideas of John Wycliffe (one of the forerunners of the Reformation movement). A case in point is the concept "Sola Scriptura" where Wycliffe raised his Bible proclaiming, "The Bible is for the government of the people, for the people & by the people". Clearly, it strongly suggests the concept of, "the Bible as the ground of Truth & the standard for the government of the people". Too bad, Wycliffe got burned at the stake stemming from that conviction, "Sola Scriptura"!
@Once-lost, don't you think you have gone too far in agreeing with/ Micah Coate's conclusion that there is such a thing as a "cultish side of Calvinism"?
No, as that wouldn't make much sense to do a video with him, agreeing with him and titling our video this way. I standby and agree there is a cultish side of Calvinism that is more head knowledge, agreement with man, and not in subjection to the Scriptures. The thing that makes it hard and "ish" to distinguish, is Calvinism in whole does love Sola Scriptura, but within the debates, it comes down to a poor exegesis from Genesis to Revelation. Majority of it is Church Fathers.... Augustine, Calvin, Luther, and then a heavy emphasis on Romans 9 and Ephesians 1, but within those contexts of verses, if you were on a deserted island and read those texts with out being sat down by some theologian, you'd never come to the conclusion that world means some predetermined class to heaven, and another to hell.
@@abjoseck9548 Doing great my friend. Much better then we deserve and still desiring to grow daily in knowing Jesus! FYI, we've never been "anti-Calvinist", just pro-God's Word 😁 Check out our last 5 videos!
I thought the argument for what makes Calvinism appealing was pretty bad. Most people find Calvinism appealing because of exegetical verse by verse preaching and that they take the election verses very seriously. Plus you have people on the other side argue that God wouldn’t predestination someone because that doesn’t seem loving to them. Which is no better of an argument than those who argue that God wouldn’t send someone to Hell because that’s not loving.
There are certainly more details on what makes Calvinism more appealing, and Micah was addressing something he specifically saw. I agree that if we did a whole video on what makes it appealing, there would be higher priorities to point out. I do not see us doing this, although it may be possible, we would need to evaluate whether it is actually profitable.
@@abjoseck9548 Yes, as that wouldn't make much sense to do a video with him, agreeing with him and titling our video this way. I standby and agree there is a cultish side of Calvinism that is more head knowledge, agreement with man, and not in subjection to the Scriptures. The thing that makes it hard and "ish" to distinguish, is Calvinism in whole does love Sola Scriptura, but within the debates, it comes down to a poor exegesis from Genesis to Revelation. Majority of it is Church Fathers.... Augustine, Calvin, Luther, and then a heavy emphasis on Romans 9 and Ephesians 1, but within those contexts of verses, if you were on a deserted island and read those texts with out being sat down by some theologian, you'd never come to the conclusion that world means some predetermined class to heaven, and another to hell.
Hi again! I would say a general census, but would not say universal. I have some very close friends whom are compatibilist or determinists and are extremely humble men. Pride is an issue within all sinners, and it would be wrong to say they are the only ones with this struggle, but the general sense is made known within a simple interaction with a Calvinist or google search. A simple search reveals that most Calvinist pages have to clarify why they often come off so proud. Also, the default position of claiming you know you are saved simply because God choose you and didn't choose someone else is quite the case for pride.
@@Once-lost , perhaps you are nursing a bleeding heart from some bad experience from a Calvinist, interpreted by you as full of "elitism & pride"-but it's not fair for you, much less to concur with/ the author of a book that associates Calvinism w/ cultism, worse, even make a negative universal claim on the basis of your bad experience!
@@abjoseck9548 We are not basing this of an "experience" and I would hope you don't think we would devote a full series based off of that. This is a general theme, and you can simply google search "Calvinism Pride" and you will see that even the Calvinists realize they have a bad rap and need to work that out.
@@Once-lost , this is a vague, generalized sweeping claim: "Google search 'Calvinism Pride' and you will see that even the Calvinists realize they have a bad rap and need to work that out." Not to be forgotten, of course, there are also arrogant Arminians who are Calvinist critics! Don't u think u need to reconsider your "googled census", as what might be true to others, may not be true to you. In the 1st place, by your own admission, you have ZERO experience of a Calvinist's bad rap?
Cultish Side of Calvinism - it parallels the Scient *logy method of slow indoctrination via the OT levels. When you get to the top levels, you are introduced to the non Scriptural stuff
@@unitedstates3068 Thank you for your kind words! I'm glad that you've found the series informative and thought-provoking. It's important to engage in critical thinking and open dialogue when exploring different perspectives and beliefs, and I'm honored to be a part of this process.
You guys have a vague, confusing message to your audience out there. You are discussing the "Cultish side of Calvinism" yet you don't have a solid case discussed & clarified related to the issue of concern vis-a-vis the Biblical text! Please be open, crystal clear & be specific in your discussion/take on the "Culish side of Calvinism" & why is it "Cultish"...
It may be confusing to you, but that may just be a good earmarker if it's contrary to something you are already following. I believe we did a thorough breakdown of Calvinism, and did so through a whole series. I do not believe we are perfect, but I praise Jesus for the opportunity to get some really good thoughts out if you haven't see already: ruclips.net/p/PL5RSG3rwJAtHSFKPe1XqhlHUrkYEoM-Dw&si=G6iPCp9esMLd_6A8
@@abjoseck9548 You'll have to be more specific in what you are asking as you said we were not clear and yet I shared a full series we did. Let me know if you have any questions after the series and I'd be happy to address any individual items you may have.
20:00 onward, The apostles NEVER said, "Jesus loves you and died for you and wants to save you." Telling non-believers that God loves them and died for them is unbiblical. Seriously. Show me where the Apostles said either of those statements in Acts. You can't. It's bad evangelism.
Thanks for dropping by and the healthy challenge. I do not agree it is unbiblical as I could show you quite quickly that God explains to us clearly, how much He loved the world, and that is what lead Him to the cross for the world, not just the church. Although it should be said with caution, just as anything given the context of evangelism and not knowing the heart, we can safely say that Jesus said it as well as His disciples. Romans 5:7-8 - For one will scarcely die for a righteous person-though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die- 8but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Paul explaining to the Christian church in Rome to understand God's love demonstrated for the whole world) John 3:16 - For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. (Jesus explain God's love for the whole world to a non believer, pre conversion) That wasn't even an in depth study, but safe to say we can appropriately say that Jesus died for the all of the world, believer or not, because of His love. Now, how that is laid out is absolutely necessary to explain and any person reading this dialogue should understand how to explain the Gospel, but based on 1 Cor 15:1-8, we know that it was Christ dying on the cross for our sins, which was lead by His love, that we can share. Thank you for your love to share the truth, and know that I appreciate your concern!
@@Once-lost, I do not agree it is unbiblical as I could show you quite quickly that God explains to us clearly, how much He loved the world, and that is what lead Him to the cross for the world, not just the church." You also in the video here claimed that "world" has to mean "everyone without exception" in John 3:16. I would push back against that. John 3:17 says, "For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but so that the world would be saved through Him." The words "so that" are "hina" in Greek, and it is a word that denotes purpose. When "hina' is used in the NT to describe God's purpose, that purpose is always--ALWAYS--accomplished. John 3:16 is a great example of that, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, SO THAT [hina] everyone believing in Him would not perish, but have eternal life." That purpose will be accomplished. The same is true in John 3:17. The Father sent the Son so that the world would be saved. That purpose will be accomplished. Grammatically, the world will be saved. Guaranteed. No exceptions. Grammatically, there are no exceptions. Therefore, you have a problem. If you define "world" as "everyone without exception," then you must be a universalist. After all, God sent Jesus, so that the world would be saved. If the world is everyone without exception, then everyone without exception will be saved. That's the heresy of universalism though. The only other alternative is to define "world" differently. "World" to a first-century Jew would evoke thoughts of Gentiles. They would define it often as "everyone without distinction," referring to people from every tribe, tongue, pepole, and nation. The point is this: John 3:16 does not teach what you think it teaches. It either teaches universalism (heresy) or Calvinism. "Romans 5:7-8 - For one will scarcely die for a righteous person-though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die- 8but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Paul explaining to the Christian church in Rome to understand God's love demonstrated for the whole world)" Two things. One, this is not an example of Paul preaching the gospel. Two, who is the "us" that Christ died for? Christians. That verse doesn't even support your premise. The same is true of 1 Corinthians 15:1-8. Who is the "our" for whom Christ died? Christians. 1 Corinthians 15:1-8 is not a quote of Paul preaching the gospel. It's Paul's summary to Christians. That's why he said, "Christ died for our sins," to Christians, but never said, "Christ died for your sins," when evangelizing in Acts.
@@joshpeterson2451 Firstly, the use of "hina" in John 3:17 indicates the purpose of Jesus' coming, which is to save the world. This purpose is not dependent on the belief of every individual in the world, but rather on the saving work of Christ. The grammar of the passage does not guarantee that everyone in the world will be saved, but rather that the purpose of Jesus' coming will be accomplished. Secondly, the claim that "world" in John 3:16 must be defined as "everyone without distinction" is not supported by the context or usage of the term in the New Testament. While "world" can sometimes refer to Gentiles or people from every tribe and nation, it is also used to refer to the entire created order or humanity as a whole. Regarding the verses cited from Romans and 1 Corinthians, it is true that these passages are addressed to Christian believers and not to non-believers. However, this does not negate the fact that God's love and Christ's sacrifice are offered to all people, not just to a select few. The fact that Christ died for sinners while they were still in their sin is a demonstration of God's grace and love, which is available to all who believe. Regarding Romans 5:7-8 and 1 Corinthians 15:1-8, while it is true that these verses are addressed to Christians, I believe that they still demonstrate God's love for all of humanity. The fact that Christ died for the sins of those who would ultimately accept Him as well as those who would reject Him shows the depth of His love and sacrifice for all people. Furthermore, while Paul may not have used the exact phrase "Christ died for your sins" in his evangelizing in Acts, he did preach a message of salvation available to all who would repent and believe in Jesus (Acts 20:21). The fact that Christ's death was a sacrifice for the sins of all people, not just the elect, is a foundational tenet of the Christian faith. In conclusion God's love and salvation are offered to all people, not just to a select few, and the purpose of Christ's coming is to save the world, not just the church.
@@Once-lost, "The grammar of the passage [John 3:17] does not guarantee that everyone in the world will be saved, but rather that the purpose of Jesus' coming will be accomplished." You can't have your cake and eat it too. If the hina clause in John 3:17 does not guarantee that everyone in the world will be saved, then the hina clause in John 3:16 does not guarantee that everyone who believes will not perish, but have eternal life. They are the exact same grammatical structure: hina + subjunctive verb. If you are going to doubt the certainty of the world's salvation in John 3:17, then you must doubt the certainty of believers' eternal life in John 3:16. You must doubt none of those given to the Son by the Father will be lost in John 6:39. I challenge you: find me a verse that describes the Father's will with a "hina" clause that does not come to fruition. When you do that, then you've proven my interpretation of John 3:17 wrong. "Regarding the verses cited from Romans and 1 Corinthians, it is true that these passages are addressed to Christian believers and not to non-believers. However, this does not negate the fact that God's love and Christ's sacrifice are offered to all people, not just to a select few." Where does Jesus or an Apostle say to a lost person, "God loves you and is offering His sacrifice to you"? Where does anyone evangelize that way? You are presupposing your position. Substantiate it. "The fact that Christ died for sinners while they were still in their sin is a demonstration of God's grace and love, which is available to all who believe." That is a logical fallacy. Saying Jesus died for sinners does not demand that He died for all sinners, in the same way saying a terrorist shot Americans does not demand that the terrorist shot all Americans. "Regarding Romans 5:7-8 and 1 Corinthians 15:1-8, while it is true that these verses are addressed to Christians, I believe that they still demonstrate God's love for all of humanity." Why? Substantiate that assertion. "Furthermore, while Paul may not have used the exact phrase 'Christ died for your sins' in his evangelizing in Acts, he did preach a message of salvation available to all who would repent and believe in Jesus (Acts 20:21)." Calvinists say the same thing. Anyone who repents and believes will be forgiven. "The fact that Christ's death was a sacrifice for the sins of all people, not just the elect, is a foundational tenet of the Christian faith." Why? Substantiate that claim. Jesus explicitly said He laid His life down for the sheep, and then He immediately said, "The reason you do not believe is because you are not My sheep." Therefore, in John 10, Jesus explicitly said, "I did not die for you people." He only died for the sheep, which He already had selected by that point. After all, Jesus said, "I *HAVE* sheep who are not of this fold. They will hear My voice, and I will bring them in." The Gentile elect would hear the gospel and be saved, and that's why they were already Jesus' sheep even before they heard the gospel. Meanwhile, the reprobate--including the Pharisees--Jesus did not die for. That's why He said, "You're not My sheep," right after saying, "I lay My life down for My sheep." Ergo, Jesus didn't die to save everyone. It wasn't His intention.
Sb@31:42, "It's Martin Luther's 5 SOLAS..." Who told you that? Absolutely wrong Sir. The 5 Solas did not come from ML (16th century), it was a late development of the theology of the Reformed faith in a simplified fashion, maybe circa the 19th Century...
"The five solas form the nucleus of the evangelical faith. They not only capture the gospel of Jesus Christ and explain how that gospel takes root in the sinner, but they also define where the authority of that gospel resides and to what end that gospel is preached and proclaimed. Although the phrase “five solas” may be more recent in its usage, the concepts are rooted in the 16th century Reformation. These five solas distinguished Reformers like Martin Luther, Philip Melanchthon, John Calvin, and so many others from the teachings of Rome. " www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/the-five-solas/#:~:text=Although%20the%20phrase%20%E2%80%9Cfive%20solas,from%20the%20teachings%20of%20Rome.
@@Once-lost , I agree w/ you, the 5 solas are the concepts rooted in the 16th century", but contrary to the statement of Micah Coate (soundbites@ 31:42), the 5 solas are not from Martin Luther's teachings solely (as insinuated), but a representation of the development of Reformed theology contributed by multiple Reformed theologians simplified and consolidated in summarized form. Strictly speaking, it (i.e. the 5 solas) stretches back all the way from the 14th century (e.g. Wycliffe's claim on Sola Scriptura as the source of truth & rule of faith for ethical behavior, for all people)...Just for clarification my dear friend. Thanks.
![58 Year Old Atheist Turns Christian After Trying To Prove Religion Is A Conspiracy [Normie]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/3mKXYI1d8-8/mqdefault.jpg)
"What Love Is This" by Dave Hunt helped me years ago
Absolutely! Really appreciated Dave's concern on the matter and willingness to speak out even though he got a lot of negativity from it. Kinda the reason we did the video is to show there are answers to the bullies.
This was so balanced and dripping with grace.
So glad to hear, praise Jesus! Thank you for sharing!
Well Done💖
Praise Jesus, thank YOU for watching and the encouraging word!!
43:10 I remember hearing Paul Washer back in the mid 2000's and I was hooked. His passion for Christ, his compassion for the lost and his zeal were infectious. As I've gotten older though, he becomes more and more frustrating to me. I don't understand how he can believe like a Calvinist and yet preach what he does. Either he is lying about his experience, or he's deceived. The double speak, and confusion is astounding.
In his "Shocking Youth Message" he says things like "I'll preach as a dying man to dying men." I thought they were dead, not dying.
Then he says "There is only one thing that gave me a sleepless night. There is only one thing that troubled me through all the morning, and that is this; within 100 years the great majority of people will possibly be in hell." Why would he be troubled? If in 100 years the great majority of people in that building were in Hell, it would be because it pleased God to do so.
According to Calvinism, God didn't love them, God didn't want them, and it pleased God to give them an evanescent grace, to deceive them into thinking they were saved when they were not. If you believe in Calvinism, why would you be troubled for people God does not want?
Well said!
Would you find Matthew 20:1 & ff, a picture of God who is UNFAIR & UNJUST?
@@Once-lost Would you find Matthew 20:1 & ff, a picture of God who is UNFAIR & UNJUST?
@@abjoseck9548 I think it's clear just as the challenge with the second brother in the prodigal son story, that the self righteous entitlement attitude is the heart of the matter.
@@Once-lost, "self righteous entitlement attitude is the heart of the
matter.", is not really the heart of the matter Bro, BUT the inevitable effect of a religious view of man/men who failed to grasp the Sovereign power of God to decide what's best for Him & Him alone! The Christian construction of reality is theocentric, not anthropocentric!
A consistent Calvinist will have to agree that the only reason one disagrees with their theology, is because the Lord wills it so - He orchestrates the whole debate for His good pleasure on their view. They may try to argue that they are not "determinists" or "hard determinists" - but when you follow the logic, it always goes there in the end - it has to - and it's political jargon to argue otherwise. "You are morally responsible as a free agent, but your will is in bondage to sin so that you cannot choose without God intervening (if He feels like it); and if He does - you will believe and cannot choose otherwise" - Translation: Determinism.
Indeed, well said!
@@Once-lost what a simplistic theology!
@@Once-lost , how "logical" must we Christians be, related to Christian theology?
@CalvinEastwood,
How "logical" must we Christians be, in relation to Christian theology?
@@abjoseck9548 If it's not logical, it's not reasonable - and likely not true. Truth corresponds to reality. All real-life decisions should be based off logic and reason, primarily. One's theology doesn't have to be logical, or reasonable, but then it's not worth arguing - it's subjective..
My apologies for double posting, I have no intention of it, still wondering why my post got doubled...
Thanks, it happens 😁
The Lord Jesus Christ Preached TULIP. There is NO Good News in Pelagianism or Arminianism. As long as I have to do ANYTHING, I am lost
Thanks for the reply, although defaulting to labeling the opposing view to simply be Arminianism is not a good tactic or strategy. I suggest working through the conversation with grace as the Lord Jesus encouraged us all to do through His word.
My main question to you based on your response as I'm not sure if you watched the video is, how can a dead person as TULIP teaches "do anything" when they are dead. A dead person isn't lost, they are dead.
Jesus had many things to say while on earth, and none of it was pro TULIP.
In Matthew 7:17, Jesus said, "If any man wills to do His will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself." John 7:17. Jesus is saying here that anyone can desire to do God's will. In John 3:16, Jesus says that God loves the whole world and whosoever believes will be saved. Jesus said in Luke that He desired to gather all Israel, but they didn't want Him to gather them. Not that they could not, but that they would not. "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!" Luke 13:34
Jesus consistently taught man's ability to choose and accountability in their choices. Jesus taught that all humanity are invited to receive His forgiveness. His teachings consistently and continually were the antithesis of TULIP.
@@Once-lost The Dead can only come alive through the Word of GOD, applied by the Holy Spirit as Ezekiel 37 teaches
@@flynnhuseby3431 Our Lod Jesus Christ in John 10:26 told the unbelieving Jews "You do not believe in me because you are not of my sheep" Note that we are his sheep before we believe in Him.
Our Lord Jesus Christ preached Limited Atonement when he stated that he came only for the Lost sheep of the House of Israel(Matt 15:24). All Born Again Christians are that Lost Sheep of the House of Israel as is clear from Gal 6:16
Our Lord Jesus Christ taught Reprobation in Mark 4:11-12 where He clearly states that He does wish to Save or Convert everyone.;
@@franciscusgomarus5086 Hi Franciscus. Context kills Cavlinism. Just keep reading.... Mark 4:11-12... then goes on to say 13 Then Jesus said to them, “Don’t you understand this parable?" ... So If the disciples were elect... why did they not understand?
How do we strike a balance between the polarities of an "arrogant Calvinist critic" (inclusive of various varieties) at one end and a "boastful Arminian critic" (inclusive of various stripes) at the other end? Can we resolve this?
Yea, by calling each out ;) Thankfully, I am neither!
1 Corinthians 3:4 - "For when one says, “I am of Paul,” and another, “I am of Apollos,” are you not carnal?"
Do you have a link to the Cultish episode where someone suggested they do Calvinism? I’d like to hear their response :)
Hi Ashley! It was actually a Facebook post. I'll try to find it and link it here but it was roughly a year or so ago now.
SB@29:08 &ff> "Calvinism is man-centered..." Please explain Why? And elaborate further...
Thanks for dropping by and saying hi! The name itself is a good start, but if that isn't enough, look at Calvin himself and his reliance on man: "Augustine is so wholly within me, that if I wished to write a confession of my faith, I could do so with all fullness and satisfaction to myself out of his writings." "This is why one finds that every four pages written in the Institutes of the Christian Religion John Calvin quoted Augustine"
Calvin, John. A Treatise on the Eternal Predestination of God. in Calvin, John (1987). Calvin's Calvinism. Translated by Henry Cole. Grandville, MI: Reformed Free Publishing Association. p. 38
@@Once-lost , With that said, do you take John Calvin's conclusion as the basis to paint Calvinism in broad stroke, as a "Man-centered" religion?
@@abjoseck9548 I'm confused how this is hard to understand when your question revolves around a man...
1 Corinthians 3:4 - "For when one says, “I am of Paul,” and another, “I am of Apollos,” are you not carnal?"
There is NOTHING good about John Piper
I personally agree, but we respectively understand where Micah is coming from ;)
The guy may not be perfect, like you & me, but let's uphold the principle: "Don't throw the baby w/ the dirty bath water"
@@abjoseck9548 "Do not throw out the baby with the bath water" is unscriptural.
@@carmenvljn, what do u mean by unscriptural? You mean, no statement in the Bible that says: "Do not throw out the baby with the bath water"?
There is a guy on RUclips that exposes false teachers and false doctrines by going to the Word, He does a great job, I won’t mention his name. I graciously asked him why he won’t expose the biggest false teacher and monster John Calvin. His response was that I was mistaken John Calvin was not a false teacher nor was he a monster. The guy that goes to scripture to prove present day false teachers has a huge blind spot when it comes to Calvin. Thank you gentlemen for speaking out.
Indeed everyone wears certain blinders, it's unfortunate but true do to the matters of the heart. I pray we all can encourage one another to die daily and trust in the sufficiency of God and His Word to clear the weeds out of our lives!
😂 asking Jeff Durban to examine Calvinism as a cult. Haha
Agreed, I know it's a high hope 😁
Sb@31:42, "It's Martin Luther's 5 SOLAS..." Who told you that? Absolutely wrong Sir. The 5 Solas did not come from ML, it was a late development of the theology of the Reformed faith in a simplified fashion, maybe circa the 19th Century...
"The five solas form the nucleus of the evangelical faith. They not only capture the gospel of Jesus Christ and explain how that gospel takes root in the sinner, but they also define where the authority of that gospel resides and to what end that gospel is preached and proclaimed. Although the phrase “five solas” may be more recent in its usage, the concepts are rooted in the 16th century Reformation. These five solas distinguished Reformers like Martin Luther, Philip Melanchthon, John Calvin, and so many others from the teachings of Rome. "
www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/the-five-solas/#:~:text=Although%20the%20phrase%20%E2%80%9Cfive%20solas,from%20the%20teachings%20of%20Rome.
@@Once-lost , strictly speaking, the "5 Solas" concepts can be traced stretching back to the 14th century, culled from the ideas of John Wycliffe (one of the forerunners of the Reformation movement). A case in point is the concept "Sola Scriptura" where Wycliffe raised his Bible proclaiming, "The Bible is for the government of the people, for the people & by the people". Clearly, it strongly suggests the concept of, "the Bible as the ground of Truth & the standard for the government of the people". Too bad, Wycliffe got burned at the stake stemming from that conviction, "Sola Scriptura"!
@Once-lost, don't you think you have gone too far in agreeing with/ Micah Coate's conclusion that there is such a thing as a "cultish side of Calvinism"?
No, as that wouldn't make much sense to do a video with him, agreeing with him and titling our video this way. I standby and agree there is a cultish side of Calvinism that is more head knowledge, agreement with man, and not in subjection to the Scriptures. The thing that makes it hard and "ish" to distinguish, is Calvinism in whole does love Sola Scriptura, but within the debates, it comes down to a poor exegesis from Genesis to Revelation. Majority of it is Church Fathers.... Augustine, Calvin, Luther, and then a heavy emphasis on Romans 9 and Ephesians 1, but within those contexts of verses, if you were on a deserted island and read those texts with out being sat down by some theologian, you'd never come to the conclusion that world means some predetermined class to heaven, and another to hell.
@@Once-lost , How have you been lately guys, still in active mode in anti-Calvinistic activity?
@@abjoseck9548 Doing great my friend. Much better then we deserve and still desiring to grow daily in knowing Jesus!
FYI, we've never been "anti-Calvinist", just pro-God's Word 😁
Check out our last 5 videos!
@@Once-lost , Do you think Calvinists are not pro-God's Word?
July 31, 2024
@@Once-lost, BTW my friend, when was the last time you shared the Gospel with the lost souls?
I thought the argument for what makes Calvinism appealing was pretty bad.
Most people find Calvinism appealing because of exegetical verse by verse preaching and that they take the election verses very seriously.
Plus you have people on the other side argue that God wouldn’t predestination someone because that doesn’t seem loving to them. Which is no better of an argument than those who argue that God wouldn’t send someone to Hell because that’s not loving.
There are certainly more details on what makes Calvinism more appealing, and Micah was addressing something he specifically saw. I agree that if we did a whole video on what makes it appealing, there would be higher priorities to point out. I do not see us doing this, although it may be possible, we would need to evaluate whether it is actually profitable.
@@Once-lost , on your concurrence w/ the author of the "Cultish Side of Calvinism", are you not moving too far on the side of "name-calling"?
@@abjoseck9548 not even sure how to take this comment? You would have to be more specific on your question...
@@Once-lost , do you totally agree w/ Micah Coate's conclusion that there's a "Cultish side of Calvinism"?
@@abjoseck9548 Yes, as that wouldn't make much sense to do a video with him, agreeing with him and titling our video this way. I standby and agree there is a cultish side of Calvinism that is more head knowledge, agreement with man, and not in subjection to the Scriptures. The thing that makes it hard and "ish" to distinguish, is Calvinism in whole does love Sola Scriptura, but within the debates, it comes down to a poor exegesis from Genesis to Revelation. Majority of it is Church Fathers.... Augustine, Calvin, Luther, and then a heavy emphasis on Romans 9 and Ephesians 1, but within those contexts of verses, if you were on a deserted island and read those texts with out being sat down by some theologian, you'd never come to the conclusion that world means some predetermined class to heaven, and another to hell.
Your claim, "Calvinism leads to elitism & pride", is this a universal case against Calvinism?
Hi again!
I would say a general census, but would not say universal. I have some very close friends whom are compatibilist or determinists and are extremely humble men. Pride is an issue within all sinners, and it would be wrong to say they are the only ones with this struggle, but the general sense is made known within a simple interaction with a Calvinist or google search. A simple search reveals that most Calvinist pages have to clarify why they often come off so proud. Also, the default position of claiming you know you are saved simply because God choose you and didn't choose someone else is quite the case for pride.
@@Once-lost , perhaps you are nursing a bleeding heart from some bad experience from a Calvinist, interpreted by you as full of "elitism & pride"-but it's not fair for you, much less to concur with/ the author of a book that associates Calvinism w/ cultism, worse, even make a negative universal claim on the basis of your bad experience!
@@abjoseck9548 We are not basing this of an "experience" and I would hope you don't think we would devote a full series based off of that. This is a general theme, and you can simply google search "Calvinism Pride" and you will see that even the Calvinists realize they have a bad rap and need to work that out.
@@Once-lost , this is a vague, generalized sweeping claim: "Google search 'Calvinism Pride' and you will see that even the Calvinists realize they have a bad rap and need to work that out." Not to be forgotten, of course, there are also arrogant Arminians who are Calvinist critics! Don't u think u need to reconsider your "googled census", as what might be true to others, may not be true to you. In the 1st place, by your own admission, you have ZERO experience of a Calvinist's bad rap?
Cultish Side of Calvinism - it parallels the Scient *logy method of slow indoctrination via the OT levels. When you get to the top levels, you are introduced to the non Scriptural stuff
Absolutely!
@@Once-lost Great series by the way. We need talented people (like yourselves) confronting/exposing topics like Macarthurism/Piperist/Sproulist
@@unitedstates3068 Thank you for your kind words! I'm glad that you've found the series informative and thought-provoking. It's important to engage in critical thinking and open dialogue when exploring different perspectives and beliefs, and I'm honored to be a part of this process.
Were you an ex-scientologist?
@@abjoseck9548 no - but know a little about it
If you don't want to be a Calvinist, then don't.
Thank you! Choosing not to is a great example of the choice we have in Christ!
You guys have a vague, confusing message to your audience out there. You are discussing the "Cultish side of Calvinism" yet you don't have a solid case discussed & clarified related to the issue of concern vis-a-vis the Biblical text! Please be open, crystal clear & be specific in your discussion/take on the "Culish side of Calvinism" & why is it "Cultish"...
It may be confusing to you, but that may just be a good earmarker if it's contrary to something you are already following. I believe we did a thorough breakdown of Calvinism, and did so through a whole series. I do not believe we are perfect, but I praise Jesus for the opportunity to get some really good thoughts out if you haven't see already: ruclips.net/p/PL5RSG3rwJAtHSFKPe1XqhlHUrkYEoM-Dw&si=G6iPCp9esMLd_6A8
@@Once-lost , cite a Biblical Text please
@@abjoseck9548 You'll have to be more specific in what you are asking as you said we were not clear and yet I shared a full series we did. Let me know if you have any questions after the series and I'd be happy to address any individual items you may have.
Calvanism Is a good ole boys club. They tend to be rough and arrogant. I have seen it.
20:00 onward,
The apostles NEVER said, "Jesus loves you and died for you and wants to save you."
Telling non-believers that God loves them and died for them is unbiblical. Seriously. Show me where the Apostles said either of those statements in Acts. You can't. It's bad evangelism.
Thanks for dropping by and the healthy challenge.
I do not agree it is unbiblical as I could show you quite quickly that God explains to us clearly, how much He loved the world, and that is what lead Him to the cross for the world, not just the church.
Although it should be said with caution, just as anything given the context of evangelism and not knowing the heart, we can safely say that Jesus said it as well as His disciples.
Romans 5:7-8 - For one will scarcely die for a righteous person-though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die- 8but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
(Paul explaining to the Christian church in Rome to understand God's love demonstrated for the whole world)
John 3:16 - For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
(Jesus explain God's love for the whole world to a non believer, pre conversion)
That wasn't even an in depth study, but safe to say we can appropriately say that Jesus died for the all of the world, believer or not, because of His love.
Now, how that is laid out is absolutely necessary to explain and any person reading this dialogue should understand how to explain the Gospel, but based on 1 Cor 15:1-8, we know that it was Christ dying on the cross for our sins, which was lead by His love, that we can share.
Thank you for your love to share the truth, and know that I appreciate your concern!
@@Once-lost,
I do not agree it is unbiblical as I could show you quite quickly that God explains to us clearly, how much He loved the world, and that is what lead Him to the cross for the world, not just the church."
You also in the video here claimed that "world" has to mean "everyone without exception" in John 3:16. I would push back against that. John 3:17 says, "For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but so that the world would be saved through Him." The words "so that" are "hina" in Greek, and it is a word that denotes purpose. When "hina' is used in the NT to describe God's purpose, that purpose is always--ALWAYS--accomplished. John 3:16 is a great example of that, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, SO THAT [hina] everyone believing in Him would not perish, but have eternal life." That purpose will be accomplished. The same is true in John 3:17. The Father sent the Son so that the world would be saved. That purpose will be accomplished. Grammatically, the world will be saved. Guaranteed. No exceptions. Grammatically, there are no exceptions. Therefore, you have a problem. If you define "world" as "everyone without exception," then you must be a universalist. After all, God sent Jesus, so that the world would be saved. If the world is everyone without exception, then everyone without exception will be saved. That's the heresy of universalism though. The only other alternative is to define "world" differently. "World" to a first-century Jew would evoke thoughts of Gentiles. They would define it often as "everyone without distinction," referring to people from every tribe, tongue, pepole, and nation. The point is this: John 3:16 does not teach what you think it teaches. It either teaches universalism (heresy) or Calvinism.
"Romans 5:7-8 - For one will scarcely die for a righteous person-though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die- 8but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
(Paul explaining to the Christian church in Rome to understand God's love demonstrated for the whole world)"
Two things. One, this is not an example of Paul preaching the gospel. Two, who is the "us" that Christ died for? Christians. That verse doesn't even support your premise. The same is true of 1 Corinthians 15:1-8. Who is the "our" for whom Christ died? Christians. 1 Corinthians 15:1-8 is not a quote of Paul preaching the gospel. It's Paul's summary to Christians. That's why he said, "Christ died for our sins," to Christians, but never said, "Christ died for your sins," when evangelizing in Acts.
@@joshpeterson2451 Firstly, the use of "hina" in John 3:17 indicates the purpose of Jesus' coming, which is to save the world. This purpose is not dependent on the belief of every individual in the world, but rather on the saving work of Christ. The grammar of the passage does not guarantee that everyone in the world will be saved, but rather that the purpose of Jesus' coming will be accomplished.
Secondly, the claim that "world" in John 3:16 must be defined as "everyone without distinction" is not supported by the context or usage of the term in the New Testament. While "world" can sometimes refer to Gentiles or people from every tribe and nation, it is also used to refer to the entire created order or humanity as a whole.
Regarding the verses cited from Romans and 1 Corinthians, it is true that these passages are addressed to Christian believers and not to non-believers. However, this does not negate the fact that God's love and Christ's sacrifice are offered to all people, not just to a select few. The fact that Christ died for sinners while they were still in their sin is a demonstration of God's grace and love, which is available to all who believe.
Regarding Romans 5:7-8 and 1 Corinthians 15:1-8, while it is true that these verses are addressed to Christians, I believe that they still demonstrate God's love for all of humanity. The fact that Christ died for the sins of those who would ultimately accept Him as well as those who would reject Him shows the depth of His love and sacrifice for all people.
Furthermore, while Paul may not have used the exact phrase "Christ died for your sins" in his evangelizing in Acts, he did preach a message of salvation available to all who would repent and believe in Jesus (Acts 20:21). The fact that Christ's death was a sacrifice for the sins of all people, not just the elect, is a foundational tenet of the Christian faith.
In conclusion God's love and salvation are offered to all people, not just to a select few, and the purpose of Christ's coming is to save the world, not just the church.
@@Once-lost,
"The grammar of the passage [John 3:17] does not guarantee that everyone in the world will be saved, but rather that the purpose of Jesus' coming will be accomplished."
You can't have your cake and eat it too. If the hina clause in John 3:17 does not guarantee that everyone in the world will be saved, then the hina clause in John 3:16 does not guarantee that everyone who believes will not perish, but have eternal life. They are the exact same grammatical structure: hina + subjunctive verb. If you are going to doubt the certainty of the world's salvation in John 3:17, then you must doubt the certainty of believers' eternal life in John 3:16. You must doubt none of those given to the Son by the Father will be lost in John 6:39. I challenge you: find me a verse that describes the Father's will with a "hina" clause that does not come to fruition. When you do that, then you've proven my interpretation of John 3:17 wrong.
"Regarding the verses cited from Romans and 1 Corinthians, it is true that these passages are addressed to Christian believers and not to non-believers. However, this does not negate the fact that God's love and Christ's sacrifice are offered to all people, not just to a select few."
Where does Jesus or an Apostle say to a lost person, "God loves you and is offering His sacrifice to you"? Where does anyone evangelize that way? You are presupposing your position. Substantiate it.
"The fact that Christ died for sinners while they were still in their sin is a demonstration of God's grace and love, which is available to all who believe."
That is a logical fallacy. Saying Jesus died for sinners does not demand that He died for all sinners, in the same way saying a terrorist shot Americans does not demand that the terrorist shot all Americans.
"Regarding Romans 5:7-8 and 1 Corinthians 15:1-8, while it is true that these verses are addressed to Christians, I believe that they still demonstrate God's love for all of humanity."
Why? Substantiate that assertion.
"Furthermore, while Paul may not have used the exact phrase 'Christ died for your sins' in his evangelizing in Acts, he did preach a message of salvation available to all who would repent and believe in Jesus (Acts 20:21)."
Calvinists say the same thing. Anyone who repents and believes will be forgiven.
"The fact that Christ's death was a sacrifice for the sins of all people, not just the elect, is a foundational tenet of the Christian faith."
Why? Substantiate that claim. Jesus explicitly said He laid His life down for the sheep, and then He immediately said, "The reason you do not believe is because you are not My sheep." Therefore, in John 10, Jesus explicitly said, "I did not die for you people." He only died for the sheep, which He already had selected by that point. After all, Jesus said, "I *HAVE* sheep who are not of this fold. They will hear My voice, and I will bring them in." The Gentile elect would hear the gospel and be saved, and that's why they were already Jesus' sheep even before they heard the gospel. Meanwhile, the reprobate--including the Pharisees--Jesus did not die for. That's why He said, "You're not My sheep," right after saying, "I lay My life down for My sheep." Ergo, Jesus didn't die to save everyone. It wasn't His intention.
Sb@31:42, "It's Martin Luther's 5 SOLAS..." Who told you that? Absolutely wrong Sir. The 5 Solas did not come from ML (16th century), it was a late development of the theology of the Reformed faith in a simplified fashion, maybe circa the 19th Century...
"The five solas form the nucleus of the evangelical faith. They not only capture the gospel of Jesus Christ and explain how that gospel takes root in the sinner, but they also define where the authority of that gospel resides and to what end that gospel is preached and proclaimed. Although the phrase “five solas” may be more recent in its usage, the concepts are rooted in the 16th century Reformation. These five solas distinguished Reformers like Martin Luther, Philip Melanchthon, John Calvin, and so many others from the teachings of Rome. "
www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/the-five-solas/#:~:text=Although%20the%20phrase%20%E2%80%9Cfive%20solas,from%20the%20teachings%20of%20Rome.
@@Once-lost , I agree w/ you, the 5 solas are the concepts rooted in the 16th century", but contrary to the statement of Micah Coate (soundbites@ 31:42), the 5 solas are not from Martin Luther's teachings solely (as insinuated), but a representation of the development of Reformed theology contributed by multiple Reformed theologians simplified and consolidated in summarized form. Strictly speaking, it (i.e. the 5 solas) stretches back all the way from the 14th century (e.g. Wycliffe's claim on Sola Scriptura as the source of truth & rule of faith for ethical behavior, for all people)...Just for clarification my dear friend. Thanks.
@@abjoseck9548 I'd agree with that ;)