~Question Time Stamps for Quick Reference: ~ 0:00 Introduction 1. 0:12 Do you agree with any of the 5 points of Calvinism? And what is the one “point” you see as the hardest to reconcile? 2. 16:17 Jesus cast out many demon-possessed people on Earth. With the explosion of the human population and religions, one would think this phenomenon would be more prevalent today, but it’s not. Any insight? 3. 18:31 What's your response to the idea that Isaiah was written by multiple authors? 4. 20:06 Do you believe that God is a matchmaker for Christian couples? The idea of waiting on “the one” whom God has chosen as your spouse? Some pastors say this is a waste of time, or unrealistic. 5. 24:49 Is it biblically o.k. for a trinitarian Christian to marry a Oneness Christian? 6. 25:41 In constructing a biblical theology, where do we start? How do we construct a biblical method for doing theology? 7. 28:00 Any advice for a Christian who lives with parents that are always swearing, drinking, and watching vulgar things? Whenever I give them my opinion, they think I'm being judgmental. Am I? 8. 30:09 My country, Armenia, a Christian Nation since 301AD, is defending their lives from genocide by Turkey & Azerbaijan. What are some actions I can take as a Christian? That is, can I go to war if it is to defend? 9. 32:04 What separates us from an angel? They had (have?) free will too, right? Is it still possible for them to fall from grace/Heaven if they choose? 10. 33:52 Have you heard of the Berisheet Prophecy in Genesis 1:1 regarding end times? It is something I've run into a lot recently and wanted to know if you have any thoughts on it. 11. 34:46 My JW friend says the Greek for “soul” just refers to any living being (person or animal) and that the “immortal soul” is taken from the Greeks and was not a Jewish belief. How would you respond? 12. 36:22 Do you plan to do more verse-by-verse studies of other books of the Bible? (Mark is great!) 13. 36:59 Is it a sin for a Christian not to vote in elections? Will not voting negatively affect one's relationship with God? Thoughts or advice? 14. 38:44 Is it better not to give if you can't do it cheerfully/lovingly, or would it be better to give even if reluctantly in order to pick up your cross and try to imitate Jesus? (I don't mean just money.) 15. 40:39 What is the purpose of a church service? Should it primarily be for believers, or should it be intentionally inclusive of those in attendance who are not saved? 16. 43:00 How do you respond to people who use verses like 1 John 3:6 to say that, as they mature in the faith, Christians come to a point where they will completely stop sinning? 17. 46:05 I’ve been told by Christians that their relationship with God is personal and they don’t wish to discuss anything in regard to religion. Is this biblical? 18. 48:18 What is your favorite Bible verse? (A verse that you would look at daily that gives you courage and strengthens you…or multiple?) 19. 50:07 Where is God's help when fighting a porn addiction? Why does it seem that crying out in prayer yields little help, and even when resisting the temptation, I'm left exhausted? 20. 54:54 Should Christians follow OT dietary laws? Many people point to Acts, but I'm stuck on the prophecy in Isaiah 66: 16-17 where eating pork still seems to be detestable to God, even in the end times.
Any advice on a Christian who has left the Catholic church but missing the liturgical style of worship as opposed to a singing type worship with preaching style? Just the music seems so shallow.
@@KM-zn3lx Sounds like you are looking for more old fashioned psalm and hymn form of worship? If that is the case, ask your Christian friends someone is bound to know which churches have that style. For example Doug Wilsons church in Moscow Idaho sing the psalms and hymns. Canon Press on YT. Or Apologia church in Arizona If you are looking for the whole style of service though I would imagine you are looking for something like Anglican churches. I am sure there are others but I am not sure of the names. Hope this helps in some way. Soli Deo Gloria
@@KM-zn3lx There are "high church" protestant denominations you could try. The Episcopalians, the Lutherans, and the Presbyterians all have some elements of that. You may not find it in every church, but they are there. Catholic services center around the Eucharist as the high point of the service. But most Protestant denominations center around the homily as the high point. Most Protestants do not take communion every week. Some take it once a month, some less often. So the focus of the service shifts to the proclamation of the Word, rather than the Eucharist. I hope that helps.
I’m a 5 point Calvinist and I think I’ve found the only non Calvinist RU-vidr (so far) I can respect because of how much he strives to stay true to the scriptures!
I agree. Winger is interesting to me in that he seems committed to 1) rightly understanding the Bible and 2) not being a Calvinist. Because Mike is intellectually honest with the Bible, he will give a very Calvinistic interpretation of a passage (or at least an interpretation most non-Calvinists avoid at all costs) but then either argue a very weird version of Calvinism to show how the verse isn't Calvinistic, or do some interesting jumps in logic (at least from my biased perspective) to make his view fit the Bible even when the Calvinist view is so natural. His take on Eph 2: 8 comes to mind; solid exegesis with a weird application for both sides. I'm poking a bit, but I find it refreshing and encouraging as it is plain to see that his passion is for rightly dividing God's word, even in the areas I think he gets it wrong. And I see the same spirit in him, where he takes joy that Calvinists are seeking to rightly understand God's word even though he disagrees with our interpretation. I wish all of us (including me) would more often show the same grace Mike shows when working through these issues.
@@oracleoftroy Agree with you on Mike's honesty in exegeting scripture. Vehemently disagree with you on these "jumps in logic" and the Calvinist reading being natural. Don't see that unless reading through reformed presuppositions.
@@LetsTalkChristMinistries Well, I think for example of Mike's earlier video on the "Achilles' heel" of Calvinism (since renamed to "Why I Think Calvinism Is Unbiblical") where he exegeted Eph 2: 8 as saying that all of (salvation by grace through faith) as an inseparable whole is the gift given how Greek grammatical genders work. His explanation was spot on and one that Reformed Theologians give and that most people on his side avoid, yet Mike seemed to think that Reformed Theology believed something else about that passage. Here we have Mike being very honest with the Greek and the meaning of the text, even to the point of giving the Calvinist explanation of the verse while missing the obvious Calvinism in his explanation. And I find the claim that Calvinist reading isn't the natural reading of the Bible at odds with the shear number of resources out there that set out to "de-Calvinize" the Bible, where there are hardly any that think they need to "Calvinize" it in the first place. Clearly one only has to remove it if it already reads that way naturally.
Predistination isn’t true to scripture. The Esau thing in Romans wasn’t about eternal salvation it was about Israel. God didn’t hate Esau like we think of the word hate, if He did then Jesus wants you to hate your parents. Jesus said if He was lifted up He would draw all men. God isn’t willing that any should perish. Jesus died for the sins of the world, not the elect, or some. God doesn’t force anyone to be saved, Jesus said He stands at the door and knocks, if any man open He will come in. Didn’t say He was going to knock the door down and come in regardless.
Man, I've been listening to you for quite some time now. It just occurred to me I never even once said thanks. Thank you Pastor Mike. Really appreciate you and the work you put in into all these great teachings!
Calvinist here. I want to thank you for your diligence in studying the scriptures, your delight in the spirit of God in the Word, your dedication to the sovereignty of God and the accountability of man. Keep on trucking.
So God would seal someone and later unseal them ? God knows who he seals because he can see the future so the issue of renouncing the faith in the future is a none issue. Once sealed always sealed.
@@iancournand4139I dont think that holds up to scripture. It seems to me that we have a choice to reject God's grace. How many times in scripture does it refer to a man who knew the Truth, but chose not to follow? I suppose, if you mean that, nobody who would later turn away was sealed in faith in the first place....to which i would agree. There are many who claim to be saved, and that they accept Jesus in His fullness. Then, you never see the fruit of the Spirit in their lives. I suggest that very few who claim to be saved have actually given their hearts to God without reservation. I currently struggle with how I can find the line between being a steward of my earthly temple, how I can live in this world and toil as commanded, but also give total control to Jesus.
Even though I find myself disagreeing with you from time to time (and usually just in regards to reformed theology), I can never do anything but thumb up your videos because of your graciousness. You're a very articulate and bright man of God, so methodical and thorough in your teachings and replies. Love you, brother, and keep up the excellent work.
@@lindaphilippi507 It's interesting because what we find on both sides is the exact same thing. Seeing Arminians call Calvinists blasphemers and teaching a false gospel is truly sad to me. It happens to me all the time.
@@leegaesswitz181 I am truly sorry for your experience. I think it's time both sides come together and realize that it is Christ alone and our faith in him that saves us even though we have minor differences in theology. I listen to a lot of pastors and speakers who are both Calvinist and non Calvinist. In my experience, it is the Calvinists who will not even refer to non -Calvinists as brothers in Christ. Mike Winger and Dr. Leighton Flowers and others who are non calvinists are very gracious in their approach and always go out of their way to include their Calvinist friends as brothers and sisters, but I just don't see it ever being returned from any of the well known Calvinists on RU-vid or otherwise. God bless you brother!
@@lindaphilippi507 that's very unfair. Have you listened to R.C. Sproul about arminians being saved and he describes them as brothers? Or Jeff Durbin call Mike Brown our beloved brother. The same with John Piper, Sam Storms.
1 Peter 3:15 “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have” - an encouragement towards apologetics for all of us.
We are all on our way back to God and we'll all get there. Why? Because God is the guy that leaves behind the 99 and goes after His beloved son until he, like the prodigal son, decides to return. God is eternal, timeless.
When I was a kid (in the 80s), I was told Calvinists were bad. It was in my high school text book. My pastors pounded the pulpit about Free Will. As a Christian, I focused on prayer to understand Scripture. Time and again, I found a conflict between the teachers and preachers and the Word. In my 30s I read a book that explained TULIP, and realized that my own study of Scripture was consistent with Calvinism. I am not upset or incensed with the thought that God had to breath new life into me, and that I am wholly dependent upon him. This is my life raft. Free Will exists on either side of the regenerate divide. As a sinner, I am free to do whatever I want, but I will never want God or salvation. As a saint, I am free to do whatever I want, and I want to please my Lord. God's hardening of one's heart is not an acceptance of free will but rather a demonstration of His sovereign power over human will and actions. God sovereignly used Pharaoh's hardness of heart to accomplish His purposes and demonstrate His power. Instead, we see someone arguing that God's sovereign action proves God is not absolutely sovereign. Calvinism asserts the absolute sovereignty of God in the salvation of sinners, from beginning to end, based solely on His gracious will and purpose, and not on any merit or work of the individual. He is either sovereign, or he is not. The central theme of the Bible is Man's attempt to usurp God's soveriegnty over Creation and Man's heart. The Bible consistently emphasizes God's sovereign choice in salvation, which is difficult to reconcile with a view that gives human free will a determinative role. To assert your own choice over God's is to reject his sovereignty. There is only one sovereign. To say you share in sovereignty is to claim co-equality with God; consistent with the tease that led to the Fall. God's sovereignty and human free will are incompatible because of the totality of human depravity. Due to the fall, humans are spiritually dead and unable to choose God on their own. If God has sovereignly determined to save certain individuals, their ability to resist or thwart His will would be a denial of His absolute sovereignty. Moreover, if human free will could overrule or negate God's saving grace, it would undermine the efficacy of that grace. Calvinists argue that the Bible consistently emphasizes God's sovereign choice in salvation, which is difficult to reconcile with a view that gives human free will a determinative role. You keep mentioning "if they study the Bible and the Holy Spirit is working on them." If the Holy Spirit is working on them, then God is exercising his soveriengty and working regeneration. If someone refuses, or falls away, then you assert Christ's sacrifice purged them of all sins, and they then turned back to sin. That's quite inconsistent with Scripture. But there are many who _claim_ him as savior (and sovereign) but are never saved. I am not a Calvinist. I am a Christian who accepts God's total mastery over myself and all else in Creation.
The first time I heard about TULIP it was parts of it. And I totally disagreed and rejected it. My whole life as a Christian I was taught that we have two choices, accept Jesus or deny him. Believe in Jesus or don’t believe him. I struggled with this because I wanted to believe and accept Him, but I felt like my actions were telling me that I didn’t believe him. I kept sinning and that was a constant reminder that I didn’t believe in Jesus and I wasn’t saved. TULIP helped me understand so many questions I had, and it made me have a much better understanding of Scripture. I agree that TULIP can be hard to understand and it can feel like it contradicts what the Bible says, BUT it doesn’t. TULIP is through out the whole Bible, Abraham wasn’t looking for God, God chose him and sent him to a different land. Jacob was elected over Esau, not because of Jacob’s “free will” but God’s. Paul explains this in Romans 9:11 “Though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad-in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls” and then continues in Romans 9:14-15 “What shall we say then? Is there injustice in God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses; I will have mercy to whom I have mercy and I will have compassion to whom I have compassion” and you keep reading and it just keeps explaining how it all depends on God. Only God is sovereign, we are slaves to sin until God’s changes that. If we decide to accept his salvation is only because God has done the work. Jesus said in John 6:44 “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him” and I can keep going with more and more verses. TULIP is biblical, pastor Mike is a great person and I like listening to his videos, but there is a lot in the bible that supports TULIP. RC Sproul does a really good job explaining it and he mentions that the five points can be confusing, he even changes some of the letters just to make it more clear to understand these five points. God is sovereign. Salvation belongs to the Lord!!
I just can’t understand why protestantism rise with desire to restore original apostolic faith and then goes to create new teachings that has been unknown for Church for 1500 years. Romans 9 is strong chapter for Calvinism view. But when you watch Old Testament you will see what God or other people of God say to His people: CHOOSE. I don’t have KJV, so please do it for yourself and you will see, what from the beginning people have free will and they CHOOSE to do whatever they want. If they want to live they choose God, if they want to do things for themselves they sin. Read the Judah one chapter and you have two examples about free will: angels and people. They choose to don’t act like God wants them to act and they fall. Remember Valaam, God gives to the donkey ability to speak for what? God by His sovereignty hardened his heart to curse Israel? No! God want to prevent this situation, He makes a miracle, giving to the animal ability to speak. I really don’t know why it’s so complicated for most of Protestants to understand what God can keep His sovereignty and let people have free will. Saints can fall it’s happening all of the time! You are believer and you don’t want to act like God want you to do because you are a sinner, so you are in spiritual fight for your life because satan wants you to fall why he acts if you can’t fall because you are saint, is chosen by God? I know what God has a power to control satan but if satan was useless apostols and Jesus himself will never tell us to be careful and preserve what we have. (salvation)
@@augustshine Augustine of Hippo (4th-5th century) greatly influenced Calvinism with his teachings on original sin, predestination, and the sovereignty of God in salvation. Augustine's doctrines on grace and human depravity laid a theological foundation that Calvinism would later build upon. Perhaps the problem is we had over a thousand years of bad stewardship by Church leaders? It's unfortunate that a coherent, systemic application of Scripture is attributed to one man (Calvin), when it's a fundamental assertion of God's Sovereignty as clearly presented in the Bible. Those who teach dual-soverignty are leading others astray.
@@augustshine Calvinism is not new teachings. Like Ben said, Augustine in the 4th and 5th century talk about those things, and where did he get those teachings from? From the Apostle Paul in the 1st century. Romans 9 isn’t the only chapter that talks about this, we see it in every letter that Paul wrote. So unless you’re saying that Paul was wrong then we have a different issue. And with all due respect, please explain what Romans 9 is saying. Or let’s go back to the Old Testament, what did God mean when he said “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion”? Now you’re talking about free will, of course we have free will because we choose whatever we want, BUT our desires are corrupted with sin, even if we want to obey God, we keep sinning. Our whole being has been corrupted, so now even though we choose what we want is not free will anymore, because the bible says that we are slaves of sin. The only person that had free will was Adam, and he failed, and with him all of us failed as well, that is the original sin, we are born with it, there was no hope for us, we just couldn’t redeem ourselves and we were condemned. That is why the Son of God came to this world, to accomplish what we couldn’t do. Through out the whole Old Testament there wasn’t anybody just in God’s eyes. Not even the high priest because while he was presenting the sacrifice of the people, it also included him. He needed to offer a sacrifice for his own sins too. Jesus was the perfect man, having free will as well as Adam but Jesus didn’t fall, making him the perfect lamp for the sacrifice of our sins. We don’t have the power to choose the right way unless the Father draws us to Christ. That’s not me saying it, it was Jesus himself that said it. And I ask you again, what did Jesus mean by that?
@@eliasmendoza2293 this topic is complicated for all christianity. Best theologist can’t have agreement on this I’m not theologist. My apologies for starting to disputing with you
Having been married 43 years I can say it’s an up and down reality. We had times when it was hard to love each other but we stuck it out. I’ve been blessed by all of my marriage.
All are invited. Some will accept. All who accept will be given great gifts. God already knows who will accept and has prepared their gifts. Very simplified but a bit of a nutshell version of my soteriology in contrast to TULIP. As to P - you can't lose it, but you can recant it.
You have no idea how grateful I am for you and your dedication to studying the Bible and being true to what it actually says. I used to be a Calvinist and even thought that if I rejected it I didn’t understand salvation, especially since most of my favorite preachers are Calvinists. But seeing you take the topic back to what the Bible is actually teaching gave me the confidence to reject it aswell, though I still love those teachers.
@@noahcole6856 I was in pretty deep for 3-6 months plus, Listening to Charles Spurgeon and John McCarthur. Those teachers have great sermons but ultimately Calvinism isn’t fully accurate.
@@noahcole6856 why do you want to argue with your dad? IME reformed men are almost a "type" and tend to be cerebral and enjoy debate. But I've yet to see someone convinced by an argument.
This video helped me immensely. Some things about Calvinism just didn't sit right with me, and you helped me realize why. I enjoy your biblical analysis in all your videos, your passion for truth, and your humor. I love my kitty as well. Thank you for all you do ; praise God.
Its garbage. By faith we believe we are made in the image of God, empowered by God, and breathe the breath of God. Faith is not a cancellation of self. God does the work through His vessels. The idea it is either God or me is a travesty set upon the Scripture.
I’m a new Calvinist and my understanding of it is God’s sovereignty not only oversees everything in salvation but everything in life itself through His providence. So although it feels like free will and looks like free will it’s still God working in us and through us to accomplish His will. I also see regeneration and faith happening simultaneously and it being all of God. If you make a decision to be a Christian and you are devoid of the Holy Spirit you are merely religious and will find obedience impossible. I know this because I was a false convert for 20 years until I experienced regeneration by the Holy Spirit and was granted repentance and true faith to believe. This miracle is not coming from our response our response is coming from this miracle.
You are on point. Without regeneration of the heart, there is no actual repentance. Man has free will, but not in the way people think. We are "free" to act according to our nature. Because our nature is inherently sinful, we cannot please God on our own and deserve justice for our sin. It is only when the Holy spirit CHANGES our nature that we can choose God and accept him in faith an repentance. I really like Mike, but he mischaracterizes total depravity/total inability? He said "When [god's] spirit is striving with the unsaved, when this is happening, when the holy spirit is bringing conviction of sin, righteousness, judgment to come, the light of the gospel is being preached into a person's life, that they will ALWAY say NO.....If you get the gospel with the holy spirit working on you, you will ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS reject god and say no." ~ 4:45 min This is so close, but it's not correct. The reformed position is that when the gospel is preached to the unregenerate man and the holy spirit does NOT convict that person of sin and does NOT work on that person, THEN the person will always say no. It's pretty simple, if the Father does not grant a person new life, then the spirit will not regenerate that person, and therefore that person will always reject Christ. The greek in John 6 explicitly says that NO MAN IS ABLE to come to Jesus unless it is granted by the father. John 6: 63-65: "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) 65 And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father."
I have had a difficult time explaining what you stated regarding free will in relation to God’s sovereignty and regeneration through the Holy Spirit. Thank you for stating it so well.
@@noahcole6856 John 6:44 and the first chapter of Ephesians . I tend to think of perseverance by God in preserving His children. I am trying to find in Mike’s archives where He talks about John 6 in particular. I tend to think of our free will as 1917 does, …without His spirit drawing us, we will always choose/folllow our sinful nature
I appreciate this so much! Studying these things for years, because, very simply, I want to KNOW God, and His word. I’m very grateful to know content like this is available! Thank you!
Mike I’ve been binging your videos for around 3 months. I’ve been reposting and telling all my friends and anyone who will listen to watch your videos. You are truly anointed to teach. You’re an answer to my prayer. Thank you. God bless you for your servant hood!
I consider myself a "calvminian". There is the ultimate power of God, "so that no man shall boast." But, there is personal responsibility, "repent, and follow me." None shall be taken from his hand, yet even the elect May be deceived.
Even the Apostle Paul said that he keeps his body in subjection to his spirit, lest he himself should become a castaway. And that he will present us holy unto Him IF we continue in His Word and are moved not away from the hope of the gospel. Once saved always saves is a silly doctrine.
@@pbm8264 You missed a phrase: "when I have preached to others"; Paul didn't want to become useless and someone others could ignore for the purpose of sharing the gospel; he wasn't saying that he could possibly lose his own salvation. And Christ is the One Who will present believers to Himself, having reconciled them by His death so that they would be "holy and unblameable and unreproveable in His sight, if [they] continue in faith" *question:* how does someone "continue in faith"? *answer:* being "established and firm" ("established" is a past participle, meaning their faith has already been set (like concrete sets)) *question:* what does it look like to be "established and firm"? *answer:* "not being moved away from the hope of the gospel that [they] have heard." In other words, Christ makes believers worthy of being a gift to Himself, unless they didn't actually believe in the first place. If they could be moved away from the hope of the gospel, then they're not "established and firm," and if they're not "established and firm," they never were "continuing in faith." There's nothing there about having once believed and then stopping believing, unless you twist hard on "continue" and ignore the grammar of the other words.
@@noahcole6856 yes I’ve watched those train wrecks. I studied, as much as I could in my own power, in patristics. Hard to stay Protestant when you see the beauty, truth, and consistency of doctrine from apostles through the ages of Christendom to now. As far as errors in Calvinism, there are many. Speaking specifically on soteriology: the most glaring issue that separates Thomism and Calvinism is, in simple terms, the idea of active reprobation. I would lean more towards Thomism than Molinism.
This analysis of the five points is the closest thing to what I have felt about the issues of Calvinism. I especially like that you mentioned your position that this is an “in house” conversation point between Christians, and that the five points are all essentially the same point. The thing that brings me to these same conclusions is that our “foundational” quote from Jesus - John 3:16 - would have been a very different conversation with Nicodemus if the five points were as solid as they are implied. Jesus did say that “whoever believes in him” would have everlasting life. He did not say that “whoever my father has chosen” would have everlasting life.
John 6: 37-40 37 All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. 38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40 For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”
People read into John 3:16 more than it says. Literally, it says, “whoever believing.” It does not address ability to believe or what causes belief. It only identifies those who will not perish. If one points out the verse’s silence (in isolation) about God causing faith, then one should also recognize that it says nothing about free will. Calvinists get some things right, and Arminians get some things right. Both sides need to up their games when it comes to critical thinking.
I have to agree with Rick here. When Jesus is talking he is specifying who the rest of the verse applies to. “Whosoever believes shall not perish but have everlasting life.” It doesn’t say anything about freewill or not having freewill. Jesus is explaining the reality of life as a believer and that’s the only group that the end of the verse applies to.
@@ricksonora6656 Calvinists get 0 things right. 2 Peter 3:9 explicitly states that God loves everyone and wants all to come to repentance, “not wishing that any should perish.” This destroys TULIP. Fun fact, Calvinism is Gnostic. Think about it. They get their beliefs from Augustine who was formerly a Gnostic. They focus on esoteric knowledge given unto you being what saves you.
I believe the 5 points>> R.U.D.I.P. (Radical Corruption, Unconditional election, Definite Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints (Preservation of the Savior)). Arminians can be saved. Logic is not required for salvation!. God has given us our teachable minds and His Spirit to understand the deep things of Scripture and we have the mind of Christ (by His Spirit). Leighton Flowers is in my opinion wrong. Reformed soteriology is difficult. It is almost impossible for JW's, Mormons, and many others to understand these deep truths, unless they become Christians (By God's grace!). But the requirement for salvation is not Biblical logic. The requirement is that Jesus died for your sins and enabled you to trust Him alone for eternal life. RUDIP are my 5 points that refute un-Biblical Arminianism. If a Christian is saved by grace and not works (Ephesians 2:8,9), How can he or she be proud? Christians humbly thank God for revealing His indescribable gift to our minds. Why don’t all people believe? Why does God not irresistibly reveal truth to all? I don’t know. Salvation is not based on “free will”, it’s based on the shed blood of Jesus Christ. Only the Father through the Holy Spirit can reveal these truths to an unregenerate mind. No pride there!!! - J.B.
Dividing with obvious fellow Christians in condescending ways is not a place I would want to be personally. This is coming from someone who is pretty fully convinced of reformed theology as well.
Oh my gosh Calvinism is like a virus. Well everyone’s got it. It must be normal. Calvin was not a good man. He persecuted true believers in Christ. He wanted to drowned all the Anabaptists. He was OK with inciting governments to persecute those he disagreed with. There’s something wrong with him and the movement. They become heady, high minded, they become exclusive and condescending. Sometimes I think the being who created all of this intricacy of terrestrial and celestial the one who takes billions of volitional beings and orchestrates them to accomplish his will -has written to us things that are difficult for us to reconcile and yet are true. Which is why we must take him at his word, and not according to human reason. Reason only helps us, when things are true, contradictions, it helps us to recognize that and help us to embark on a journey to seek how to figure out either: which is right or if both are wrong.
Thanks Mike for this balanced teaching. I liked the concept you mentioned about choice and realizing that not every choice made is 'ideal'. You likened this to seeking a marriage partner, but it can be applied in other areas of our life to some extent. I also liked the way you explained temptation and sin in relation to fire. Very strong corrective yet compassionate guidance.
Thank you so much, again, Mike. I enjoy every one of these videos and so appreciate your wise teaching. Your voice of reason and grace is so needed in the Christian world.
On the topic of marriage: I’ve always said this and Christians look at me like I’m from Mars. Marriage is about commitment, love and sacrifice. Happiness comes from fulfilling those things with the help of the Holy Spirit. It didn’t matter WHO I picked because of some arbitrary qualities, what mattered was that we agreed to commit, love and sacrifice because we both understood what marriage was. I didn’t date a lot when I was younger, even as an atheist, because I know what the end goal is; when I found someone (set up on a blind date by a mutual friend) who agreed with me on what a relationship was and where it was headed, we made a decision. When you have a strong foundation, love grows. It doesn’t dwindle over time and become bitterness. Find someone of good character who agrees on the premise, and continue working every day to build on that solid rock.
Total depravity - 3:40 and 4:07 and 4:40 and 5:08 and 5:48 and 11:37 Divine hardening - 6:42 Unconditional election - 7:23, 7:58, 8:32, 8:45 and 11:44 Is Faith a work? - 7:42 and 7:50 Corporate election - 9:04 Limited atonement - 10:43 and 11:05 Irresistible grace - 12:11 and 12:35 Perseverance of the Saints - 13:01 Overall - 14:23, 14:38, 14:50, and 15:03
:) It might be that you don't understand either side (or worse, don't understand what the Bible teaches). Anyone can say throw shade. It's quite another thing to offer clarity and answers. So people should be more interested in actual answers.
@@timffoster it’s true though there are other things other than Arminianism and Calvinism but people act like it’s a black or white sort of situation when it may not be since there are some verses that don’t add up to either side unless you try to interpret them differently
@@stevenmorales2660 I tend to interpret it as being charitable. I can't think of very many views that are within orthodoxy that aren't generally aligned with Calvinism or Arminianism. Molinism seems to try to play both sides and sort of sits in the middle. Other views tend to stray into Open Theism or (Semi-)Pelagianism and thus towards heterodoxy.
@@timffoster Christians should recognize an impasse, and value mystery, and avoid viewing matters of free will vs God's will as a resolvable issue in Scripture, as if it has to be one or the other, and stop engaging in useless, fruitless, doctrinal tail chasing. Sitting around with thumbs up the backside, asserting religious self importance with debates on this issue is the norm in luke warm, status quo "Christian" quarters. Its time the church got on with advancing the Kingdom.
Prior to the polarities of Calvin and Arminius there was Luther and Erasmus ...before that there was Augustine and Pelagius. It seems the issue of Free Will Vs. Total Depravity seem to resurface. I agree with Theron that there are "extremes" on both sides that distort a sound version of what is intended. Within both camps there are many shades, degrees and emphasis that further muddy the waters. I think the major flaw of both schools is how they apply biblical hermeneutics. This generally is the weakness in any systematic theology. The temptation is to make scripture fit into the theological construct of our choice. Romans 9 is a classic example of how badly brilliant men interpret and apply out of a chapter devoid of the context of the whole book...namely the Jewishness of Romans is completely ignored.
I had never really understood what Calvinist believed until I took a seminary class through our church. I now understand why so many in the church are afraid that they are not saved. I plan to watch a lot more of your videos.
Whats weird is it wasnt until I heard some calvinists that I felt assured. Im a protestant with a lutheran understanding. When I heard a calvinist say that you can't choose God unless he chose you first, means the very fact you are seeking Him and His word and following Jesus is proof he already chose you. If he didnt chose you, you wouldn't respond or care. I dont know every point they have, but I agree with them to a degree, up until they become contradictory to my understanding of being saved by faith thru grace, and it is not a work. I don't believe regeneration preceeds faith, but sometimes these arguments feel like word games and nuanced semantics. I once heard a unitarian and a trinitarian argue for the exact same thing, making the same points using different words, both acknowleding the divinity of Christ but placing more emphasis in either humanity or divinity, either perspective didnt disqualify Jeus as proper atonement for our sins so I didn't balk at it too much. These days im more interested in finding common ground with doffefent Christian denominations, and outright calling out damnable errors, new age theology and progressive heresys. Basically Im most interested in coming against any bastardization of the gospel or any salvation blocking errors. Either way this is a great video and he hits the nail on the head.
So grateful for this q&a, especially your input on "the one". As I was very confused by this growing up and it made me very anxious about finding the perfect one... yet, as I was introduced to other perspectives, like we can be good stewards of our choices, specifically and especially marriage. I felt more free to find someone who had godly character and a relationship with Christ. Rather than waiting for some sign, or magic feeling toward the "one"
I was one for 33 years! I have a Masters in Theology from a Calvinist Seminary. However I left Calvinism 4 years ago. I do however continue to listen to McArthur.
Always wondering how is it good stuff that you pastor Mike gave to your listeners! God bless you for your teaching and really nice Biblical advices ! I'm really blessed even i studied theology and it's my hobby and i am a Christian about 30 years ..still learning and opening new !
“We’re going to be happy together, or we’re going to be miserable together. I may as well make it work.” I think that statement is so funny and so true
So many good answers, Mike! I particularly appreciate your answer about finding "the one". I think this would be very helpful to so many to have this perspective. Also, I appreciate that you called people knuckleheads. :)
I’m a Calvinist. But I can always appreciate someone who is willing to have this discussion. I think you’re wrong, and that you have misunderstood the doctrines as a whole, but I respect you and think we will both be in heaven together.
You should repent of your blasphemy against God. God wishes all men to be saved and to say anything else is blasphemous against his perfect moral character
@@gustavusadolphus4344 So if God "wished" all men to be saved then why aren't they all saved? If it's because mans free will does not choose God? Does that mean a persons will trumps Gods will? Either God is absolutely sovereign or he isn't. Which is it?
Great teaching! Thank you Ps Mike for your work, I’m learning everyday through your sound teachings. May God Almighty grant you more wisdom and strength to serve Him with all tht is within you
Pastor Mike - If we are truly born again, it seems logical we cannot be unborn. Just as if we were born into a family and end up rejecting mom and dad - that reaction, whatever the reason, cannot make you unrelated to your mom and dad - you were blood born and with Jesus we are blood bought and thus adopted into the family of God and become a son or daughter whether obedient or disobedient. What do you think? Thank you for your passion in wanting to get the truth out.
When discussing the conflict with free will and Calvinism, I was told it doesn’t violate our free will because in our sinful and fallen state humans will always “freely choose” to reject Christ. 🤷🏽♂️ BTW, that’s an interesting point on God hardening hearts in John. Will try to look into that. Love you Pastor Mike.
Mike doesn't sound as though he fully understands how Calvinistic theology works. And I also think he's oversimplifying it. It's not that a person cannot say "yes" when God is reaching out to them and the Holy Spirit is bringing conviction of sin -- it's that they can't say "no"! The point is that when the Holy Spirit removes a heart of stone and replaces it with a heart of flesh, he is not under any obligation to do this for anyone. It's an act of absolute grace when he does. I love Pastor Mike, and his ministry clearly is being blessed by God and used for the Kingdom, but this is just one of those anomalies that you find in a teacher. They can be right on everything else, but wrong on just one thing.
@@wishyouthebest9222 Oh, I get it now. You were replying to that weird atheist I was talking to in that other comment section of one of Mike's videos. I'm doing fine, thank you. I'm studying at a Bible college. Are you doing okay?
I looked up and found that James White responded to your response. I believe that he explains clearly and shortly some misconceptions about "works" and "faith" in your representation of calvinism if you want to look at it. Thanks a lot for your work, your channel is very instructive !
I learned that Total Depravity...simply means that whenever an unsaved person does anything, he is acting selfishly, so he is not acting morally. He is unable to act morally. To act morally, someone must be motivated by supreme love of God, and unbiased love of fellow man. Only in Christ, living as a new creature, does someone begin to act morally and/or unselfishly.
In regards to marriage, you said exactly what I have come to think of it: As soon as you're married, they're the one. I fully believe that God has set aside one for me, for whom I must seek God and submit myself to Him be made into the man of God He wants me to be. If I cannot do that, I will not be a worthy husband
Most Calvinists would say that free will is the mechanism by which we choose God or reject him, but without regeneration we are a slave to our sinful nature and will freely choose to do that which opposes him. When we are regenerated, we still have free choice in a sense, but our nature has been changed so that we do not want anything other than to put faith in Christ and follow him. The definition of "free will" might be a bit different from others, as Calvinism's definition is the ability to act according to our greatest inclinations at a given time.
Just wanted to say thank you for all the time and effort you put into these videos. Found you after watching American gospel and I have been learning a lot from your channel. May God continue to bless you. Amen
Philippians 1:6, I can see the points u raise but as far as the security of a believer I feel as though salvation is based in GOD not only the work “the cross” but the competition of “resurrection “ in his presence, I’m not a calvinist but I believe the work of GOD stands sure from start to finish.
I used to think I was a "Four Pointer" and that I was only really against Limited Atonement. But, after having studied it more thoroughly, and seeing others define each one of the 5 Points, I realized that I couldn't quite affirm ANY of them, but that each one of the Calivinist understandings of the concepts TULIP tries to explain, gets it only partly right, and then fails at each point.
Awesome video as usual. Regarding "P", it's up to God to hold onto us (e.g. "Who can separate us..." and we are sealed...etc etc. My belief is if someone can completely walk away with no conviction...or apostasy...then they were not truly saved to begin with. Someone can have few works and be saved "as by fire" with their works burned up but they'll be saved. If something that we could do can undo what Jesus did, then what he did was insufficient. I do believe in eternal security. If someone COMPLETELY walks away, then yes they are not saved, and were not saved to begin with. Have referred MANY people to your chanel. Keep up the great work. God bless.
Yes I agree, we may not get any rewards and crowns, but we still get eternal life, that is secure. Also, we may not get any positions in the 1000 year kingdom
@@tperry6425 I understand that you interpret it that way, but I hope you can understand this other interpretation (which is very natural). A person who makes a wax seal for a letter means that the letter will not be opened unless the seal is broken. In Revelation, there is the vision of the seal that could not be broken by anyone but the lamb who was slain. In normal life, a seal on a letter would be broken by the recipient to be sure that it is not read until the right time. If a letter comes with a broken seal then you know it was opened as anyone could have broken the seal. A seal also could be used to indicate authority or official approval, like a signature. The view that the holy spirit is the seal of our salvation until the end may be that of an assurance that one is in Christ and hence assured. They will be producing the fruit of the spirit. (You will know a tree by its fruit.) This is the same thing that seems to be expressed in various parables in the gospels about trees producing good fruit. If the seal is broken that is analogous to seeing the seal be broken. This is analogous to the warning in Hebrews to not let your heart be hardened due to the deceitfulness of sin as: Hebrews 3 Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. To fall away from God assumes that one is with God then later no longer is with God. So, it is assumed that unclear verses (based on a metaphor of a seal) should be interpretted based on clear verses (like the one and many others, many of which are in Hebrews). That is my point to not base doctrine on interpretions of verses that might not mean what you think they mean because your doctrine comes from other verses. God bless.
Yes! Man made in God's image and likeness is deeply connected to the fact that man can receive God into him, that God can dwell in man. Man is a vessel that can contain God, just like a glove in the image of a hand can contain the hand.
It's been said when we pass into glory there's a banner above the gates...as we walk toward the gate we see it reads "come unto me all ye who labour and are heavy laden." When we go through and turn around and look back it reads "chosen from the foundation of the world".
Hello Mike! Glad to hear you plan to teach Hebrews after we are done with Mark, which I am enjoying greatly!! And you said after Hebrews you would like to teach something from the OT, I would like to request Daniel 😃 because of all the prophecy for the end of the times. Thanks for all your work!!!
Dad and Mom attended and were Missionaries in CRC when I was a girl. Tried to return as an adult half a century later. So love these dear people. But left, again, for TULIP reasons mentioned here and other reasons regarding amazing prophesy Biblical Truth not taught in CRC or believed. Thank you.
I loved your study, How Correct is Kenneth Copeland? I have chronic health problems and having faith to suffer was never something I had thought of. Thank you for your faithfulness, many times in my dark times I come here and listen to your teachings.
Look up Justin Peters, especially his seminar titled "clouds without water". He shows how many different people are false teachers and false prophets. He helps deal with false and pervasive teachings, he is sound and solid in true Biblical discernment. He talks about and shows people like copeland. Copeland is not a good guy, I would advise you to stay away from him, he is a false teacher and false prophet, with some pretty outrageous claims as well of God talking to him, and even taking him to heaven.
Keith is talking about a video Mike Winger did presented as “How Correct is Kenneth Copeland?” These are good resources and worth the time, but Keith never said he watched Kenneth Copeland.
Love Mike and he’s an amazing brother in Christ, but I strongly disagree with his explanation of the five points. Specifically, total depravity. But it is what it is. Grateful for him and his ministry either way
I have not heard a consistent explanation of "total depravity" from Calvinists who lack consensus on what it actually means. It CERTAINLY is not an emphasis on the NEW MAN, and the problem culturally is a lack of distinction between the dynamics of lost and now saved vs saved and now FREE, yet to the Calvinist still enslaved to Adam. There has been no more of a perversion to Christian culture than this systemic denial of the NEW MAN.
I was more shocked when they said God ordained rape of babies for His ultimate glory and our human minds are small enough to understand but God controls all things. This really shocked me and i refuse to believe it. They ssy God has the power to stop the rape from happening but he allows it for a reason. Its ridiculous
@@tsebosei1285 unfortunately we live in a sinful world where there is free will. People use their free will to do nasty, evil things. People CHOSE to reject God and do their evil deeds. They will get justice when facing the Judgement seat of God, and that judgement is eternal.
@@tsebosei1285 You're misunderstanding what is meant by seeing only one side of the issue. God also predetermined the crucifixion of His sinless, righteous Son. No worse crime has been committed by human beings than that. God either allows something to happen, or he doesn't allow it. If He allows it, then it can only happen by His sovereign decree. No matter how dreadful and horrifying the thing may be, God obtains glory by either showing how gracious He is or by showing how just He is. He might be gracious, as He was to Saul of Tarsus or King Manasseh. But He might choose to "show his wrath and make his power known" (see Romans 9:22) as He did to Pharaoh or Herod Agrippa.
Mike, respectfully, that was a misrepresentation of what Calvinism teaches on the perseverance of the saints. I've never heard any Calvinist say that apostasy doesn't happen or can't happen. The teaching is that salvation cannot be lost once a person is saved (John 10 and Romans 8 are the best passages that teach it). Calvinism affirms that someone who PROFESSES faith in Christ but then just completely abandons the faith and rejects God was never saved to begin with; they were a liar. 1 John 4 (I believe) says, "They went out from us but they were not of us. If they had been of us then they would have continued with us. But they went out so that they may be made manifest that they were not of us".
I see that the Calvinist doctrines revolve around a certain premise. And that premise is the one that always keeps me near these doctrines. Spurgeon writes about it when he explains his view of Limited Atonement, that he actually calls Definite Atonement. The premise is that GOD ALWAYS WINS. When Jesus died, he definitely saved everyone who He died for and no one will take a single of His sheep from Him.
Once saved always saved contradicts Revelation 22 For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. So the truth is how can a person be unsaved and have a part of the book of life. So therefore you can lose your salvation
@@kenim what about Simon the sorcerer, what about demas, Hymenaeus and Alexander and others, who can you shipwreck a faith that doesn’t exist. If a person doesn’t have a relationship with Jesus, you cannot physically discipline them.
I appreciate you Mike Winger for defining things from the Bible and sticking to the text of Scripture. I agree that the issue is whether faith is a work or not is crucial. My question is where does faith come from? Does my faith or your faith come from you? Or is faith a response to a work of God?
I went to a Christian secondary school, founded and "run" by a group of Dutch-Reformed and Presbyterian families. I myself grew up in an open Brethren church, as did a few classmates (we kind of had a little of any given denomination except Roman Catholic). There is nothing quite like a group of 15 year olds earnestly and openly digging into Scriptural soteriology on their own time.
Thanks Mike for all your videos and teaching of God’s word. On your view of total depravity these verses keep coming to mind. Also if we were dead in our trespasses, how can a spiritually dead being choose anything unless God makes us alive. John 6:44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. Matthew 16:17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. John 15:16 You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit... Romans 3:10-11 as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. Romans 9:10-13 And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad-in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls- she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
First of all I love your channel and watch it like several times a week. You’re awesome and I love that I found a teacher that is faithful to the Bible and apologetics who is NOT Calvinist because I honestly didn’t see a teacher like that before who wasn’t Calvinist. Second, I think scripture really supports total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement and perseverance of the saints. We were dead in our sins, why would we choose God? While you are right in saying “regeneration before faith” I understand as regeneration happens AT faith but that faith is a gift from God not from ourselves (Ephesians 2). Like sometimes my faith is weak but I’m thankful that Christ has given me that mustard seed that can grow. And how can God choose who can be saved (elect) but they are the ones who govern in free will alone? And with limited atonement, like Jesus’ blood only covers those who believe. It doesn’t count for nonbelievers. Like I thought most Christians affirmed this because Jesus’s blood does not cover nonbelievers. It’s the easiest one to me. With perseverance of the saints, scripture is so supportive of it. And yeah irresistible grace, I think that’s when we are born again. But we still have free will to sin, we always have. We say no to God as Christians unfortunately.
We are all on our way back to God and we'll all get there. Why? Because God is the guy that leaves behind the 99 and goes after His beloved son until he, like the prodigal son, decides to return. God is eternal, timeless.
I’m definitely reformed. Won’t even begin to comprehend the 5 points. I have always viewed it as philosophy over detriment to our salvation. Jesus came for the common man to understand what he did for them.
There might not be a ‘one’ but there kind of is in a way if everyone’s lives are already written before we live a single day (Psalm 139:16) then in a sense God already knows which couples will meet. It’s a bit like salvation in a way in the sense there’s a choice and also there isn’t a choice in one way as God knows us so already knows what we’ll pick
Though I don't agree with pastor Mike in all of his theology e.g. I'm a fair believer that the teaches TULIP I still love and highly regarded him. He is a blessing to all true believers. Bless you pastor Mike
That's not what total depravity say!!! If the Holy spirit working on that person, then he will never say "NO" to Holly spirit. Calvinist teaches that unless Holy spirit work on that person, He will never say "Yes". Total Depravity teaches John 6:44 "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day."
I think Mike Winger is trying to make a distinction between the Holy Spirit working from the outside, and him working from the inside. But that isn’t taught in Calvinism to my knowledge. So the hypothetical would assume that Calvinism is false.
I'm not sure what Mike says that is wrong -- as he said, Total Depravity is the idea if the person is not regenerated, he will reject the holy spirit. Man is so morally and spiritually corrupt he will always reject God.
@@peterfox7663 The issue I think is that he said man would reject the promptings of the Holy Spirit. I don’t think that Calvinist teach that the Holy Spirit begins a good work in someone (convicts them) and does not complete the work (grant repentance).
I want to define divine hardening. The idea with Calvinism is that no one can even have their eyes open to him unless God allows them to see. So if he is the potter and we are the clay, all he has to do is leave the clay alone and it will harden on its own. So God does the hardening by backing off of the person and allowing the heart to do what it would naturally do which is to turn away from God and become even harder than it is
Good analogy, but what does that mean practically? You said, "...no one can even have their eyes opened to him unless God allows them to see." So this person is born blind by God's decree. Now the question is, what does hardening actually looks like in this person's life specifically in regard to his inate inability to see? In other words, using your analogy, if God walks away from this blind person, does the person become blinder? What does that even mean?
@@gk.4102 Hey how are you! Winger and made a statement that he had never met a Calvinist who could explain The “hardening pharaohs heart“. Analogies are always insufficient to completely explain. But the idea in Calvinism is that regeneration precedes faith. That’s the whole idea of being born again. The person did not really initiate the work but God does. Biblically speaking, the Bible affirms that no one seeks God, no one understands, no… Not one. So God would have to initiate a work in someone to open up their spiritual eyes to desire him and choose him. If he does not do that they remain hardened. I just used the Potter and the clay analogy because the Bible uses it to talk about God creating some for noble causes and others for ordinary. In other words, The Potter does what he wants and he is able to shape the Clay as he desires. When winger was talking about hardening hearts I think there was an insinuation that pharaoh might have repented or turned having seen the works of God but God prevented him from doing so. I would argue that pharaoh was not going to turn to God no matter what unless God opened up his eyes and allowed him to see the goodness of God so that he could choose to repent and surrender and not Ultimately be destroyed. Winger is a way more versed man than I am. And I love his messages. But I do think when the Bible talks about hardening of hearts, that’s probably one of the many ways that the Bible tries to explain it in our terms. Many times in the Old Testament especially there seems to be references of “God changing his mind“ or the “sun stopped in the sky“ that are explanations that we would understand and made sense to the reader at the time. Once again, I could be completely wrong. But I do believe God begins the initiating work, and if he doesn’t, we remain hardened to him.
@@gk.4102 … And just to be a little more precise, the Calvinistic view sees regeneration preceding faith but it is simultaneous for the believer. In God‘s world it would proceed and happens before. And I world we would never know the difference because it appears to happen at the exact same time. Somehow and in someway he initiate a work where we see his glory and therefore we see our sinfulness and our need for him and we can’t help but choose him. And I also want to say, I don’t know that I’m a five point Calvinist, but I do believe God definitely initiates the work that leads to saving faith. I was so excited you actually responded to my post! Thank you for doing so! I hope you have a wonderful day!
@@gk.4102 Last thing I’ll say… I responded to you via “talk text”. A lot of my words were accidentally capitalized or the wrong words were said through predictive text. Hopefully you can read through all the garbled words to get the meaning I intended. Have a wonderful day!
@@peterjory7531 Thanks for your reply. I'm not a Calvinist, so I disagree with most of what you've said, but I don't want to turn this into a full blown Calvinism debate, so I'll stick with my initial point. Maybe I've missed it, but I didn't see anywhere you've actually responded to my original specific question about hardening. You said, and I paraphrase, "If God doesn't initiate a work to open someone's spiritual eyes, they remain hardened." So are you saying that people are born already hardened? Or do they become hardened?
I really appreciate Mike’s teaching and his graciousness toward those he disagrees with. I hope this comes across as graciously as Mike’s arguments against Calvinism. I think the major difference between Calvinists and those who disagree can be represented as below (I mean no offence to either side): Calvinists say, “God is sovereign; man somehow has responsibility.” Those who disagree say, “Man has freewill; God somehow is sovereign over it.” I think many, including Mike and even many Calvinists, misunderstand what TULIP entails. I think the mistake is assuming Calvinism is entirely hostile to freewill. T - Total Depravity doesn’t mean man has no choice. It means man wills to choose evil instead of God unless the Holy Spirit transforms him. It’s hard to say not even one person “seeks for God” (Romans 3:11), yet some choose to submit to God without first being changed. U - Unconditional Election Mike seems to understand okay, but we disagree. I believe when Jesus says, “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me,” that he is referring to his elect (his sheep) who will believe when they hear the gospel (read John 6:35-47, 64-65, 10:3-4, 14-16, 24-30). L - Limited Atonement I don’t understand clearly. John Piper, a Calvinist, says that he believes Jesus’ death means no less for the non-elect than an Arminian would say, but for the elect it guarantees salvation. I - Irresistible Grace doesn’t mean man has no choice, but once he is born again (yes Calvinist believe regeneration precedes faith), the choice is obvious - inevitable. P - Perseverance of the Saints I think Mike understands. I believe that no one indwelt by the Holy Spirit would reject God in totality. That would mean they had never been saved.
There's no "God is somehow sovereign over it". God is sovereign over all. Calvinists use a different definition of sovereign -- they use "sovereign" to mean determinative (of all things). Those who disagree with Calvinism use "sovereign" to mean God has ultimate authority.
@@peterfox7663 I guessed there was a difference in definition. Could you explain further what God being sovereign over all by your definition entails? Can something thwart what God had planned?
@@levifox2818 a simple analogy: Your boss is sovereign over the office. He can do as he please. He could micromanage every aspect of your work, or he can let you do as you like, within his rules. As far as thwarting God's will, no. Similar to a parent who desires his child to do his homework, but also desires his child to make his own choice in the matter. The parent hopes his child chooses what is right, but also desires them to be free to make that choice. Now, unlike a parent, God is all-powerful and if he wants something to come to pass, he will somehow make it happen.
My understanding of what Calvin, and what Calvinists and the reformed confessions define as far as total depravity, is that every part of our being is depraved. So our flesh and soul are both sinful. However, Calvinism also teaches irresistible grace. So if the Holy Spirit brings conviction during the hearing of the Gospel, the that comes along with regeneration and causes the sinner to come to faith and repentance. To say that Total Depravity means that we would reject the Holy Spirit's conviction is not what the reformed tradition teaches. At least, that's my understanding. Great video, brother! Soli Deo Gloria.
Hi Mike I'm a Calvinist who used to be an Arminian. Why don't you do video on the five points of Arminianism which brought tulip to counter them God bless.
Can you please to a video on evidence in the bible for FREE WILL. I have always just taken it for granted. After 11:26 I started to wonder how do I know that?
From my understanding it’s not in the Bible .. and makes me think of the verse , how can the clay question the potter? What free will does the pottery made for destruction have? I hope He answers this ! If it’s not in the Bible, then his arguments against Calvinism fall short except the first. Faith precedes or happens simultaneously to transformation. It’s all semantics..
Given your answer about Total Depravity, my question would be how you avoid the charge of semi-Pelagianism? You aren't a Pelagian as you acknowledge a work of the Holy Spirit prior to conversion, but you explicitly deny the Calvinist answer that this work is irresistible regenerative grace, and you seem to reject the Arminian answer that it is a prevenient grace that removes the effect of our depravity to some degree allowing us to make the choice. But you also do seem to misunderstand an aspect of Total Depravity as well. You seem to think the idea of divine hardening would pose a challenge to Calvinism, but that is only true if man is maximally depraved. The Calvinistic notion of total depravity is that sin has spread to and affected every aspect of our being (the totality of our being) not that we are as depraved as we can possibly be. By analogy, it is like taking a glass of water and stirring in a spoonful of salt. There will be no part of the water not affected by the salt (the salt is totally dissolved), but the water isn't saturated with salt, you can still stir in several more spoonfuls. That is what we mean by total. Every aspect of our being is sinful and depraved, but that doesn't mean we can't be even more depraved. Every aspect of our being is tainted by sin, and it can become even more tainted. If you want a Biblical version of my same analogy, Jesus used dough and yeast to describe the same thing.
There is one thing to add to Winger’s point that he should’ve mentioned on divine hardening... which is apostasy. Specifically how the Bible says in Hebrews 10:26 that there is a greater punishment for apostasy. If men who are depraved- although not maximally as you put it- will not accept the gospel unless they are regenerated beforehand, then why do they receive a more frightful and “greater punishment” for something that they couldn’t/wouldn’t do otherwise? So I ask... if totally depravity is the case, then why does the Bible teach about these varying degrees of punishments (Luke 12:47) when they are literally only two possible outcomes for any man in a Calvinistic reality- which are to either be regenerated and believe the gospel, or left unregenerated and go on to reject the gospel. It doesn’t make sense to punish a sinner more greatly unless he is being punished more for something that he failed to do... something that he could’ve done (which is to not reject the Son of God).
Think about it... God determines that a specific person won’t be elected to receive salvation... but when that person hangs around the church and rejects the gospel later on... God says “how could he? Let me increase the severity of his damnation for what he has done!”
This is why Mike used the term total inability. We all believe that a little bit of sin makes the whole person sinful. But it's clear that totally depraved people can do good things. We've all seen unbelievers that act more like Christ than some believers. Romans 2 says, "Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law... who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness." Traditionalists agree that total depravity does not mean maximally depraved, so many Calvinists have started using the term "total inability" instead - that is, a person is totally unable to respond in faith. So that's why Mike's hardening is a strong argument. It's not, "How can a person be more sinful," it's, "How can a person be more unable?" You either are able or not, and God's hardening of people who are unresponsive and unable to even want to respond is like putting a blindfold on a dead man. Now, if a totally depraved unable can do good with their hands and feet, then why can't they look to the cross with their eyes or call out for help with their mouths? You may point to Romans 3:10-11, but Paul answers that in the rest of the chapter: A person can't be righteous or seek God -through the law,- because the law only brings death. It's like your salt illustration: Once one grain of salt is in the water, it can never be diluted away, no matter how much more clean water you put it. No amount of law-keeping can remove the guilt of a single sin. But now the righteousness of God -apart from the law- is revealed... even the righteousness of God, His justification made available to all and applied on all who believe. For just as all have have sinned and fall short, so all can be justified by faith through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.
@@progodspeed2311 I don't really see Heb 10: 26 saying there is a greater punishment for apostasy per se. It seems to hold the greater punishment for the fact that they are not ignorant of what God's word teaches, as they formerly believed it and sat in Church learning more deeply the things God has to say, but now reject it. Now they aren't sinning in ignorance, but willfully defying God's commands. There are two outcomes when you pull back and just look at salvation and damnation, but when the Bible goes into more detail. It speaks both of rewards in heaven, and (as you note) different levels of punishment. I don't see why that would be a problem for total depravity. I reject the modern notion that we aren't punished for our sins, but all our sins are forgiven and we are only punished for whether we believed in God or not. No, for those who refused Christ, they bear the burden of their sins. Those with greater sin bear a greater punishment. It is a greater sin to willfully do what God hates to defy him to his face than to ignorantly disobey him. _"God determines that a specific person won’t be elected to receive salvation..."_ This wording is awkward. It suggests that man is neutral or deserving of salvation. In Calvinism, all of us are sinners who deserve God's wrath. In election, God is choosing from already condemned sinners, not morally neutral people. Those he chooses he saves and the rest he passes over and leaves in their sin.
@@amos6235 Not that I object to either phrase, but I personally like 'total depravity' as a two word phrase a bit better than 'total inability'; though the Canons of Dort do use the latter. I think 'inability' conjures up the idea that we are completely unable to respond to God in any way whatsoever, when in reality it is speaking to our inability our our will to do what God requires of us. Or to borrow the Westminster Confession's language: 9.3 "Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any *spiritual good accompanying salvation:* so as, a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto." This allows for man to do all sorts of good deeds, even converting to Christianity. But without the regenerative grace of the Holy Spirit, such belief will prove no better than the belief the devils have. _"We all believe that a little bit of sin makes the whole person sinful. But it's clear that totally depraved people can do good things. We've all seen unbelievers that act more like Christ than some believers."_ I think this is really well said. I often see people push Total Depravity to some absurd statement of our ability to no good of any sort whatsoever. What you say here is inline with the Reformed teaching, and really, all of orthodox Christianity. Total Depravity has been the teaching of the church for much longer than Luther and Calvin and the other reformers. To be honest, by your tone it sounds like you mean to contrast Calvinists with what you call 'Traditionalists', but I don't see much difference between your detailed description of our depravity and what the Calvinists confess in their historic confessions. All orthodox Christians have accepted total depravity, and its rejection is the root error of the Pelagian and semi-Pelagian. That's why I ask how Winger avoids that charge.
35:55 on after life hope, we see it in OT. Psalms, Job etc. David, when his child dies in 2 Samuel, stops weeping, saying, “He will not return to me, but I will go to him”. In a way he considers it as i will die too but we also can view him as meeting that child in the after life.
Once you learn to think logically you can only become a Calvinist. All the five points of Calvinism are linked together in a logical way. Thanks to RC Sproul, may he rest in peace, I could understand this quite easily. Arminianism is simply illogical and erroneous.
Mike, you're response to the first point is quite insufficient. If you respond to the gospel with faith and repentance, then there's something in you that makes you to differ (as opposed to your neighbor who hears the same gospel).
6:10 from what I understand about this provenience grace stance, it is that a person’s nature and free will is broken by sin and can only choose to accept God after God has fixed them enough to be able to choose. (Or at least something similar to that idea)
