Every time someone comes out as an ex-Calvinist, this guy (James White) ALWAYS denies that they were a Calvinist in the first place. So predictable. I mean how many people can you gaslight until you come to realize that you’re gaslighting yourself. Thank you for your videos man and treating Calvinism with grace. You’re really helping me come out of the deep hole of despair that is Calvinism.
LOL right.... if you left Calvinism you must have never been a Calvinist. James White must think this verse applies 1 John 2:19 NKJV - They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us. 😂
That's not what White's saying, though. White's point is that people like Mr. Breda claim to have once been a Calvinist, but then when they offer their refutation of Calvinism, they actually refute their own misconception of Calvinism rather than the genuine article. There are far too many examples of this on RU-vid, and that's disappointing. I am a Reformed leaning Anglican. My good conservative Presbyterian friends point out that I'm not consistently Reformed, and they're correct. I'm not a James White fanboy, I'm not a Reformed Baptist, and I'm not a drinker of the Calvinist koolaid, so please don't take this as polemical trolling. Something that I respect about White is that when he engages in a moderated, formal debate, he does his homework. Oftentimes, he'll read what his opponent has written on the subject of the debate. He tries to understand what the opposition is saying, to represent the opposing views accurately, then he interacts with those views. When White's debate opponent does likewise, those debates are extremely informative. When caricatures and misrepresentations are what's being refuted, it's very, very frustrating. That's why it's so important to do these things carefully. Surely, you would bristle at somebody who misundetstands you, then proceeded to argue against what you never said.
@@PrenticeBoy1688 see, I think unless you can articulate it exactly the way James White would, on every point, then he just says you were never a Calvinist. I bet to him, no one has ever left Calvinism 🤷♂️ To me it's much simpler, it boils down to how one answers this question In regards to how a person is saved do you think the Bible teaches us that: 1. A person repents, “believes/receives/trusts” in the Lord AND THEN they are saved/regenerated/born again and are now part of the body of Christ ? OR 2. A person is regenerated/born again, then they believe in the Jesus?
That's because their arguments don't line up with teachings of Calvinsts. Someone can say they were a Calvinist but then when they make statements that are not at all calvinsits beliefs, it's obvious they weren't truly a Calvinist. FYI, James White just proved this video to be false. Breda's Greek is really bad. Im not being mean saying that. It's just that Breda is so certain of his interpretation and use of Greek. Please see this video and you'll all hopefully see the truth about John 6 and see that Breda is WAY off on his Greek. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-tDllHID-Wpk.htmlsi=Z8f0seXM6hSGfKp1
That is a very typical modus operandi for cults! It seems to me that Calvinistic teaching leans heavily in that direction by ‘dismissing’ those who discover it’s unscriptural premise and inferring there is some other reason the leave. It couldn’t possibly be that former adherents finally ‘see the light’ because that would imply that those remaining are in error. As an act of self-preservation, that could never be true! 🤷♀️
With all due respect to James White…He is so steeped in Calvinism I highly doubt he could ever separate from the theology even if he wanted to. Not without consequences he would not be comfortable enduring. God’s grace be with him! Your video is informative as per usual. God bless you brother!
AMEN... I see those who teach Calvinism as being just as deceived by the lie upon which it is built as those they teach and lead into the same ditch. IMO, it's just a revamp of Satan's original proposal to Eve; 'God cannot be trusted to be honest with you or have your personal best in his plans.' The other possibility is there may be those whose personal reputation and financial gain is so directly invested in Calvinism they continue to promote it even though they no longer are confident it is true. They just have to much to lose to abandon it. Recent Calvinist apologist who de-converted, Tyler Vela, admittedly continued defending, debating, and promoting the 'Doctrines of Grace' for over a year after he personally no longer even believed in Jesus of considered himself a Christian..... $$$ and reputation. Eventually, he 'came out' as denying Christ and yet, he still affirms the Calvinist 'system' is the only correct way to understand the Bible.... he just no longer believes it's true. It will be hard for any Calvinist to accuse him of 'not understanding Calvinism'.... but they will. They always do. Once you hop in the little red Calvinist convertible and began driving around the Bible ...you think you see red convertibles everywhere.... I think it's what is known as the The Baader-Meinhof phenomenon, also called the frequency illusion. It's a cognitive bias that affects how we think and process information. It's a phenomenon where something you recently learned seems to appear everywhere, making it feel like it's more common than it actually is. This quickly evolves into Biblical confirmation bias. Where one studies the scriptures not to learn what it actually says, but to 'find' verses which can be "used" and interpreted to affirm what you have already concluded to be true. After accepting Pelagius' 'red herring' that is faith was a work, I believe this is how Augustine originally developed what eventually became TULIP. Calvinism has always been a doctrine in search of a scripture.
And with all due respect, you need to read Acts 16:14 again, where Lydia was already a believer in the Father, and that same Father had to OPEN HER HEART to believe in the Son, thus cutting off the leg's of Jason's desperate attempt to elevate man's autonomous, libertarian free will to believe in Christ when they are damn good and ready, and when they do, to boast of their free-willism in heaven for all eternity. NO! J.B. is 100% WRONG! ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-tDllHID-Wpk.html
@@andrewtsousis3130 NONSENSE oh thou fool. You are 100% wrong, and HYPOCRITICAL TO THE MAX! Calvinist ALREADY believe, as Scripture teaches that God has the power to open the heart, EXPLICITLY stated in Acts 16:14 and elsewhere. It is people LIKE YOU who says he DOES NOT have the ability, but instead, he sits out there in the grandstands of the universe smoking a cigar and crossing his fingers leaving the decision to come to Christ up to somebody's autonomous, libertarian free will. You truly deserve the hypocrite of the year award by wanting to have it both ways--and it's pathetic you can't even see it.
I found it interesting that whites first response is to question if a former Calvinist was actually really a Calvinist, like this idea if you were a true Calvinist, you would never turn away from it that is a very questionable view very bias view that Calvinism can never be wrong and second they take a lot of liberties with John 6 especial with the word draw the textiles not say what they needed to say for Calvinism to work they are reading systematic into that text
I left Calvinism last year after 20 years, and as a pastor. For me the walls started crumbling over Limited Atonement as I exposited 2 Peter while preaching through it. As one who is committed to the Bible, I too had to go back and look at all of the passages that I thought taught Calvinism to see what they actually said. I was shocked when I read the Bible without a Calvinistic grid. John 6 was some of the last portions of Scripture I dealt with. When studying it I had to ask those bigger picture questions about context, and I had to look at themes, and what is John actually teaching. First, I asked what the purpose was of the book. Chapter 20 says that, “these things were written that you might have eternal life.” I had to ask, if this is God’s purpose for the book, then why would he predestine to shut some out. Some will be shut out because of their own unbelief, but never because God determined it. Second, I saw in John 6 that it was the will of the father that they believe in the son. Again, why would He prevent them or desire not to save them if His will was that they look to the son and believe? Third, in John 6:33-32, we see that Limited Atonement is blown completely out of the water. There we find Jesus telling them, my Father GIVES YOU the true bread from heaven. Who does he give the true bread to? Those who in the same chapter who would walk away and never believe. For them Christ was given as well, and the bread is a reference to his death on the cross. Again, why would God the Father send Jesus to die for all if he intended only to save some? This did not fit the Calvinist system. As for John 6:44, drawing is with chords of love, not dragging. This is seen in the OT when God drew Israel. It was always with chords of love as in Hosea. This is in keeping with how draw is used in John 12. When Jesus is lifted up He would draw all men to himself. This was a drawing through the love displayed in the Gospel. Calvinism doesn’t hold the water that I thought it did. Thanks for the video.
Thank you so much for this teaching. Having come to faith in Christ several decades ago - apart from Calvinism - this is how I’ve always understood John 6 - however, I’m now in a congregation in which Calvinism is being pushed so I want to be prepared to refute it from a biblical perspective.
Very well done Jason. I just came out of Calvinism myself after 20 years of adopting it. I have always heard John 6:44 used as a proof text for Calvinism but you have demonstrated that the context does not have unconditional election in view whatsoever. You were right to point out the uniqueness of the time period from which this was written as a transition period between the old covenant to the new covenant age. Verse 44 is saying that those who listen to, have been taught by the Father, listen to and come to Me [Jesus]. The Pharisees could not hear/believe the words of Jesus because the couldn’t hear/believe the words of the Father. And now a unique age is coming when believers will be taught by God in a new and intimate way through the Son. Heaven and earth is coming together by the Son coming down and believers will soon dwell with him in an intimate way on this earth in the soon coming age.
How did the people come to have a relationship with the Father first before being given to the son, when Jesus said, "no one can come to the Father but through me"?
@@SheepDog1974umm no. Reformed believers don't believe you can have a relationship with one Person of the Godhead independent of the other Persons, because God is one. I think OP is highlighting the inconsistent logic in this video.
This is fantastic Thankyou. It’s great to see your journey of finding the truth in these scriptures. I honestly cannot understand how anyone can read the book of John and not see that All can hear, learn and choose to believe or not.
Because the Lord himself says only those drawn by the Father can come to him…twice in John 6..and the disciples that didn’t like it left him. Just as many do today. Jesus also tells the non-believers that they can’t believe because they’re not his sheep. Predestination and Election are all over the entire Bible.
@@shawnglass108 the best thing you can do Shawn is watch Alana’s videos, see how it isn’t all over the Bible, and when it is mentioned it is not related to salvation. I never had your perspective. Honestly those who have never have had a Calvinistic lense, when they see it and learn about the doctrine see just how tainted and deceptive it is. I pray you can honestly search the scriptures, not with any pre-conceived ideas and let the Holy Spirit show you the real God of the Bible and His true Sovereignty.
@@andrewtsousis3130 , Thank you for your response. I spent most of my life as an Arminian or some form of it. I had never been taught predestination or election and when I came to those verses I always just dismissed them as not meaning what they actually were saying. It wasn’t until just a few years ago that I started truly studying the Word deeply and I obviously learned from Charles Spurgeon and many other great godly men about Calvinism. Spurgeon says the doctrines man nicknamed Calvinism are written in scripture as if with an iron pen. I have come to believe that’s absolutely true..and they are certainly dealing with salvation. When Jesus says only those called by the Father can come to him in John 6 twice, he means it and it’s obviously about salvation. When Jesus says all who the Father have given him will come to him and be raised up, that’s about Salvation. When he says my sheep hear my voice and tells some of them they cannot believe because they are not his sheep he means it. That’s about salvation. It is incredible clear that Jesus laid down his life for those given to him by the Father. His sheep and that he accomplished that when he said “It is finished”…Paul’s talk about God’s predestination in Romans 8 is clearly about salvation and when Luke wrote in Acts 13:48 “and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed” it is impossible to argue that isn’t about salvation. I think you probably need to do what I did and read the scriptures with an open mind and heart. Free from the ideology or traditions you were taught. God bless you regardless of our different beliefs.
@@shawnglass108 well sounds like you and I are similar except I always studied the word.I started watching the same people you did, the difference for me is the Holy Spirit sent alarm bells about this doctrine. He is willing that none shall perish, that all will have eternal life. He is willing that all can come to repentance. If you declare with in your mouth Jesus is lord and believe in your heart God raised Him from the dead you will be saved. For it is with your heart you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. The Calvinist god if predetermins salvation, is a god that enables/allows people to choose false gods, but not him the one true god, and then writes commandment 1 “no other gods before me?” This is deceitful, and is not the God of the Bible. I encourage you to truly study the Calvinistic proof texts and ask the Holy spirt to show you. I pray you can turn away from a deceptive doctrine that in the name of Gods Sovereignty limits Christ atonement, limits Gods Sovereignty, and worse, changes the very character of God.
@@shawnglass108 another thing Shawn, read the whole book of John it is all about John the Baptist, the disciples and Jesus Himself appearing to people telling them they must believe. It is full of choice not predestination. John 6 (just prior to v:37) Jesus says He is the bread of life “whoever comes to me and believes in me” the reference to v 37-39 is saying God will give/draw those who believe to the Son,and he shall lose none of them, the next verse 40 Jesus then says “For it is my fathers will that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life.” This is an example of the Calvinistic lense changing the scriptures to mean something they don’t.
Hi Living Christian. Thanks for the video! I was hoping to find some good things here, but I gotta say that it didn't scratch where I itch, so I'm walking away empty handed. Also, you didn't touch on what I consider are very important verses/phrases in Jn 6, so I'm a little curious as to why you skipped them. But first: full disclosure: I'm not a Calvinist. I've never read Calvin (or Augustine, for that matter). I don't listen to much James White (he grates on my nerves, actually). I can count on one hand the things I've read/listened from Piper, Chandler, Platt, Keller and most of the big names in the Reformed movement (the only exception would be RC Sproul). I am, however, a determinist - a compatibilist, to be specific, so I suspect there's a lot of overlap that I would have with most Calvinists. With that out of the way, bear in mind that many Calvinists might not agree with my comments. Here are the things that strike me as odd in your presentation: - You frequently mentioned Calvinists imposing a 'systematic' onto the text and that they should stop because certain things aren't mentioned explicitly. I get where you're coming from, and I'm no fan of eisegesis. But your request is impossible for **anyone** to do: regardless of one's theological persuasion, anyone anywhere who tries to clarify a passage beyond simply mentioning the grammar is necessarily imposing a 'systematic' on the text. It's unavoidable. You did this yourself when you said "John's audience is Jewish". For all you know, John's original audience could have been Gentiles familiar with Jewish history. The text doesn't *say* his audience is Jewish; therefore (according to your rules) you shouldn't say it either. And where would that get us? - You stressed that John 6:37 doesn't say that "all" is the elect, and you're right. But John doesn't say it's not the elect. Are you sure you're right when you add to the text to insist that "all" is not the elect? If John's audience understood "all" to refer to the elect, you're kicking against the pricks to insist it's not referring to the elect (I'll need to dig it up, but a friend of mine who is a Greek professor showed me a passage in Irenaeus' "Against Heresies" where he basically quotes John 3:16, but instead of saying "loved the world", Irenaeus said "loved the world of them that are being saved". Clearly, he understood John to mean something far more specific than what we modern 21st century Western readers comprehend in John 3:16. And he should know, since he was only 1 disciple removed from John himself). At any rate, the point I'm making here is that if John's audience understood his use of 'all' to refer to the elect, then you're superimposing something on it that doesn't belong when you say it doesn't. [this point will become clearer later] - At 50:56, you stressed that we should stick with what is in the text. You made an appeal to clarifying language that is not in the text ("chosen", "elect", etc), and used the absence of that clarifying language as proof that the text is not about that concept. As I said previously - I'm all against eisegesis, but your request is untenable. If you tried to apply that same principle to 1 John 2:2 (same author!) you'd have a rock-solid case for Universalism. Because plainly read, 1 John 2:2 supports Universalism 100%. The only way to make it not support Universalism is to add clarifying language to the text. - At 54:20, you said that nowhere else in the Bible do we see "all that the Father gives Me". I have to admit I dropped my jaw on that one a bit. Yes, the *exact* phrase isn't mentioned, but the concept most certainly is! In Isaiah 8:18, we see that the Father has given children to His Son. It's such an important point that Hebrews quotes it and directly connects it to Christ Himself, and the suffering He did in order to save those "sons of glory"(Heb 2:10). In saving them, Jesus says "Here I am, and the children God has given Me" (Heb 2:13). This is the same "all that the Father gives Me" of John 6. This horde of believers is also seen in Is 53, the great chapter on substitutionary atonement. In it Jesus is bearing our griefs and sorrows and by His stripes we are healed. (Sidebar: I have no problem saying that all those for whom He bore their griefs and sorrows are those who are saved. That's just the way the text lands on me. That's Limited Atonement, btw - another discussion for another day). At the end of ch 53, we see Jesus again with those whom the Father has given Him: [+]Yet the LORD was pleased to crush Him severely. When You make Him a restitution offering, **He [the Father] will see His [the Son's] seed**, He will prolong His days, and by His hand, the LORD’s pleasure will be accomplished. (Isa 53:10) And BTW, if your Bible has cross-references, see if it lists Heb 2:13 as a cross reference for Is 53:10. I never noticed till last night that mine does. So that tells me it's not my imagination when I see those 2 passages connected. So it was strange to hear you reference this phrase in John 6 as a stand-alone phrase in Scripture. - You spent a good bit of time talking about how John 3:37 ("all that the Father *gives* Me") is present tense and therefore the death knell for Calvinism. You claimed it would have to be past tense for Calvinism to be true. But then you skipped v39 where the same phrase is used in past tense. Why did you skip that? Honest question. (Personally, I don't put much stock in verb tenses. Take Is 53 as an example: it's all in past tense: "He *was* despised and rejected by men" "He *bore* our griefs" "The Lord *has* laid on Him the iniquity of us all". Past tense for an action that wouldn't happen for another ~730 years) - You said that people hear/learn/believe and have life in His name, and that this "blows Calvinism out of the water". Just being honest - I don't see how. As a determinist (compatibilist), I believe that everyone/anyone who responds in faith to the Gospel call does so because they were elect from before the foundation of the world and they hear Him calling their name and so they respond. John the Baptist says as much in Jn 3:27. Humanly speaking, yes, they are hearing, learning and choosing to believe. And those who don't respond aren't His sheep; they never hear/learn/choose. The text is perfectly compatible with that notion; Election and predestination doesn't have to be mentioned explicitly at this junction for it to be true. But John 3:27 seems to cover it sufficiently - imho. (Let's press the point for a sec: Gen 1 doesn't mention explicitly that the Word created everything. But John 1:3 does mention it explicitly. Could Joshua and Moses have insisted that the Second Person of the Trinity did NOT create the world because it's not explicitly mentioned in Gen 1? I hope not. Point being, when certain details aren't present in a verse, we can't invoke argumentum ad ignorantium and insist those details cannot be part of the equation. That's a logical fallacy.) - Lastly - you completely skipped the importance of John 6:64! Jesus knew from the beginning who would not believe. For me, this verse (more so than all the other verses) has always been the verse that swings all of John 6 into the Calvinistic column. Think about it: all humans everywhere fall into only 2 groups on Judgment Day: - sheep (heavenbound) and goats (hellbound). So the syllogism would go something like this: P1: Jesus created all things; no exceptions (Jn 1) P2: Jesus did not have to create that which He created P3: Jesus knows all things (Is 46:9-10) P4: Jesus knew from the beginning who would not believe (Jn 6:64) Conclusion1: Therefore, Jesus knows all who will believe Conclusion2: Therefore, Jesus created all those who will believe ^This^ is functionally equivalent to Double Predestination. That's why I'm puzzled that you skipped explaining it. - Jesus freely made those whom He knew would go to hell (and He did nothing to stop them from maturing past the age of accountability, thereby ensuring their eternal demise) - Jesus freely made those whom He knew would believe and go to heaven (even if we don’t apply them to Jesus Himself, they apply to God, so it cashes out the same) How else would we describe Jesus' free creative choice, other than to call it "Double Predestination"? I have no other answer for that question. (Jn 6:64 plus Matt 11:20-26 convinced me that Double Predestination is the order of the day. Why was Jesus preaching to people that He knew from the beginning would not believe? All He did was (knowingly!!) increase their hellfire) At any rate - that's where I land. Your video is aimed at Calvinists; I'd be curious to hear what they have to say bout it. Thanks.
Now that is how one should disagree… thanks for spending the time and effort to write this up. I hope he takes it to heart. Adding wording as he sees fit but not allowing others to do the same is not being consistent.
@@GoodBerean Thanks. Me, personally, I'm not all tied up in v37 and v39, 44, etc, and don't feel a need to bang those verses like a drum. I think with sufficient yanking, just about anyone can make those verses fit their paradigm, so they don't make/break much in my mind. (I'm sure Calvinists are roiling to hear me say that. Ha! ;) ) But I'm very curious about your take on v64 tho. **The ramifications of that knowledge that Jesus had undercuts the idea that free will is driving the show** (especially when you reflect on v64 in conjunction with Matt 11:20-27). I don't see any wiggle room there. Jesus is holding all the cards, and giving them only to those He wants to see saved. That's the only conclusion I can come to. The best response I've heard about v64 is that "beginning" only refers to the beginning of their conversation that day. That strains credulity beyond my breaking point, so I don't go there. Not only does it undermine the doctrine of God's omniscience, but I can't think of any place in the Bible where Jesus' actions or knowledge from "the beginning" referred to a single day. (The guy who floated that idea promptly blocked me after making that statement. Weird.) The verse is critical because once we establish that Jesus knew they would not believe, everything He says to them from that point forward can only serve one purpose and one purpose only: increase their hellfire on Judgment Day, **and He knew it**. It would never save them, **and He knew it**. So why did He preach to people He knew would never repent? He didn't do it to try and save them. Check out Matt 11:20-27 and let me know what you think. (BTW, WL Criag dismisses that entire pericope as just hyperbolic language and not literal. I was stunned! I don't think the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah appreciate his dismissal of their hellfire. And yes, I'm serious. Because Jesus came to their town [Gen 19] and freely chose to not preach to them, knowing full well that they would have repented if He did. Where does that put WLC's middle knowledge??) Thanks.
Wonderfully laid out, brother. Reformed believers didn't just pull their systematic out of thin air, and you demonstrated humbly and responsibly what is so frustrating about this presentation. Well done and done in the right spirit, as well. Blessings.
This is wonderful. I too am a former Calvinist. I never had peace in it though. But I wanted the truth and prayed for truth which led me out of Calvinism, just like it led me out of Catholicism which was what I grew up in. I’m always praying for more truth. I was so happy to find your channel. You have a wonderful gift for teaching. This is a blessing, this terrible false doctrine needs to be refuted. I say that with love because I believe that Calvinists are my brothers and sisters in Christ but unfortunately are believing false teachings of men. God Bless you ✝️ 💚
Calvinism is the ultimate antidote to the Papal Scarlet Harlot (the very Antichrist of Scripture), and all her lying, false doctrines. Maybe reconsider this important fact. Go check out someone like Dr. John Gill (1697-1771), one of the most erudite, Reformed Baptist scholars/preachers of all time. *Soli Deo Gloria*
I almost walked in your shoes...I walked away from Catholicism after I believed the gospel and now stand in God's grace. I then hungered to learn more about our Savior which led me to hear many preachers whom I later learned were Calvinists and I almost swallowed that pill/lie. Thanks to many great teachers I was able to dodge that fiery dart. It's a battle out here 😰 This one verse sums up how a person becomes a Calvinist and why they stay. 2 Corinthians 11:4 “For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.” It's simply "another" and they are willingly bearing with him.
Libelous statement! it's a shame your ignorance and egocentric theology leads to such slandering of brethren in Christ. Shame on you! The Reformed are those who fought hardest against the lies of the Antichrist (Papal Rome). Shame you can't see that. @@KISStheSON...
@@CBALLEN Do you see how silly that sounds? You are telling me that through studying God's word, you were shown that freewill doesn't exist. Studying is a freewill action. Study: the devotion of time and attention to ACQUIRING knowledge on an academic subject, especially by means of books. Proverbs 2:6 “For the LORD giveth wisdom: out of his mouth cometh knowledge and understanding.” Proverbs 4:7 “Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding. The Lord first GAVE. We can GET. With all thy getting get understanding. Understanding produces faith. Simple.
Thank you for taking the time to make this video. I appreciate the calm and methodical way you teach. I also appreciate that you do not speak n a derogatory way about those who disagree with you. The person who runs one of the first two channels I found against Calvinism seems to have gotten progressively more and more arrogant and derogatory and I just don't see the benefit in that. I appreciate your decorum and genuine love for those who disagree with you. I especially enjoyed the verb discussion and will be trying to do some more of that on my own. Thank you!
Context and Calvinism never align. I’m pleased you mentioned the historical/covenantal context is when Jesus was speaking in John 6. Not only do most His disciples abandon Him and never walk with Him again by verse 66, (disproving effectual drawing by the Father to the Son), but in John 12 when Jesus is speaking about what He will do after the cross He says He will draw all men to Himself in the new covenant.
I’m at the 20:48 mark. I can assure JW I didn’t latch on to Reformed Theology because of stogies and whiskey. It was the only Christianity I knew for 25 years. I was taught TULIP from Sunday School up at a Second Reformed Presbyterian church. We had Bible studies with two books, the Bible and the Westminster Confession of Faith. I debated these doctrines online for over a decade. What started me in the path out was WCF 3.1 and verses like Jeremiah 19:5 and 32:35. I couldn’t reconcile these two statements. I saw that 3.1 made God a liar in the Bible which is untenable to me. That’s what started my path out of RT.
47:23 " 'comes' is an action taken by the individual for which they are responsible." Hmm . . . A bucket of water comes up out of the well when I pull this rope. Is the bucket or the water responsible for the action?
So, to wrap up your introduction and bring it to a singular point: The main thrust of the entire book of John (to which Ch 6 will attest and contribute) is that Jesus is fully linked to God. To love and accept God is to love and accept Jesus. Conversely, to reject Jesus - the Promised One of God - is to confirm one’s rejection of God. Particularly to the Jews (to whom this book is primarily written), they are mistaken to believe that they are spiritually secure by their devotion to their religion. The OT points to a coming One, and the test of their faith is that those who have been trusting God (when the Coming One is revealed) will receive Him with joy! In this sense, all who belong to God will be transferred to the Kingdom of the Son - in this transitionary era. And for those who wonder: Will any get lost in this transition and fail to enter the Son’s kingdom, the answer is a resounding: “No! The Son will not lose any given by the Father.” And from here forward this is the way it works: those drawn by the Father will be drawn to the Son. There will be no distinction. This is an epochal (or dispensational) shift: No one can conceive after this of a person believing correctly in God and rejecting Christ. Rather, the 2 are together!
Really appreciate all your videos on this topic. Mike winger had put a crack in the shell of my calvanistic views, and you shattered them haha. Any plans of interest in doing any studies on eschatology? I've felt a very strong desire to begin reading all the OT prophets and seeking God more fervently as the day draws near. I also worry that a pre trib rapture is something many take for granted without studying, and if wrong, could lead to much dismay and resentment among believers. Anyway, thank you and God bless! Hold the faith.
@jonavan1450 thank you for your comments and transparency. Praying for you. I see faith synonymous with trust. Have you read the Words of Jesus? Do you trust in what He says and Who He says He is? Emotions are important but sometimes emotions can misguide. Place your trust in His Word. Trust Him at His Word. Know that the promises in the Word are for you and all who trust and believe in Him. Seek His face. Ask for Him to help you! He is faithful. He will never leave or forsake you! I felt led to share this song: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-PcmqSfr1ENY.htmlsi=KXbBWkqFkYKAD49r
@@GoodBerean I'm sorry I think I worded that very poorly. You really explained a non calvanist interpretation well enough for me to leave those views. Been studying that more here as I read the scriptures and you are absolutely right. Faith proceeds regeneration. Sorry for the confusion of my message! (Ohh it was just a response meant for a different comment whoops)
I am a former Arminian. I was so for 40 years. During that time I hated Calvinism and thought Calvin, Luther, and Spurgeon were three of the most evil men to ever live. I studied diligently to discover how to prove Calvinism wrong. Hundreds of books and articles and sermons by both Calvinists and Arminians. After 40 years of this, I still had no resolution. So one day, in anger, I said to God: "I don't want Calvinism to be true, but I've come to find Arminianism distasteful as well. Until you show me unequivocally, which is correct, I'm walking away from any more studying and bible reading and prayer and fellowship. And that's what I did. One evening, two weeks later, I was standing on my deck, looking up at the stars, when bits and pieces of all that I had studied starting popping into my head. Faster and faster, they came into my mind, like a pile of jigsaw puzzle pieces. Then, these pieces started to move around and join themselves together. Suddenly, in a burst of clarity, I saw the truth. By the grace of God, I am now, and forever will be a Calvinist. Now I see all the anti calvinist videos and comments on you tube, and my heart goes out to them. I pray for them that God will do for them what he did for me and remove their blindness and show them the truth and beauty of the Doctrines of Grace. Grace and Peace to everyone reading this.
I know it seems harsh, but Scripture speaks very narrowly towards anything contrary to the truth. In many respects paints things black or white. People are in the truth or they are not. I get it, Calvinists believe they know the truth, and they could make the same stance towards the non-Calvinist, and that’s why we should be humble in our communication and teachings, go back to the Word and examine carefully. My whole statement is speaking beyond Calvinism here also….anything that can distort the character of God is a work of Satan and we need to discern and test everything. More could be said….but this is where I’m at right now in how I see it. Appreciate the comment!
@@GoodBerean I have to say mate, I don't agree with your explanation of this chapter in John, having been myself "compelled" by the desperation wrought of deep conviction to come as a beggar crying for mercy to the feet of Christ ( which prior work of God I believe to be the hearing and learning of the Father through the spiritual and perpetual convicting ministry of John the the baptist -"that ALL men through him might believe"" the same disciples heard John speak and followed Him, Christ") but you do have a good quantity of the "Meekness of Wisdom" recommended by the Apostle James 👍🙏
@@pauldonnelly3726 what dont you agree with exactly and what is your counter to those points. Or are you using a universal brush?? Coz you know thats dangerous right?
Great point about listening and hearing from God. Christ also reinterated in Luke 8, after the parable of the soils, he said, "Take heed how you hear!" Very emphatic. Same thing the Lord has been saying all through the biblical narrative since Genesis and does all the way to Revelation.
@abjoseck9548 He chose Judas to go out with the other disciples, as many as 70, (72 in some manuscripts) to proclaim that the kingdom of God was at hand, among other things.
Amen brother l believe this is the only way to get the attention of the listeners because at the end of the day no matter what we say on this or what they say on that side without proper explanation of the scripture then it just causes droves of Souls to pick a side rather than Read the Word for themselves🙏and to be honest asking myself the same question what if I was one these droves of souls where would I be spiritually how would I act within the body without proper discipline and discipleship in both the teacher and the student willing and sincerely choosing to grow then we can see fruit 🔥💯
Keep in mind that the capitalizations (or not) of words is strictly an interpretation by men, so always test them out. Same with red lettering of Jesus’ words - a magazine editor came up with that in 1901, so that’s another interpretive issue that needs to be tested.
Thank you for this helpful exposition, brother. I appreciate your thorough build out of the broader context. Despite what the Calvinists might say, this is just sound hermeneutics. Do Romans 9 next! Quick production critique: It might just be my own auditory processing issues, but I find the background music a little distracting.
@@GoodBerean We are totally uninterested in anything you have to say on Romans 9 since you have disqualified yourself to speak on this issue due to your error on the basics of John 3:16. We both know you will NEVER admit your error, as is typical of all human nature, so the last thing in the world I would ever do is tune in to your commentary on R-9. For those whose minds are open to truth, however, they will find out the literal rendering of J-3 reveals that "whosoever" is not even in the passage (!!!). It literally reads, "so that all believing ones shall not perish but have everlasting life", which instantly destroys your thesis and renders it null and void. Having established that "whosoever" is not in the Text, your assumption that God "gives this right to WHOSOEVER" (and him not even ENTERING the situation!). is theologically bankrupt. Yes, we must PREACH the gospel to "WHOSOEVER" because we, his ministers, have no idea which spiritually dead man will listen, but we plant the seed as Jesus instructed, and in that parable, he correctly states that no one knows the mechanics of exactly HOW it is able to germinate. Likewise, HOW he opens up someone's eyes, is beyond our understanding, but THAT he does definitely do this, is undeniable. Yet you have decided to l now spend your life...,DENYING IT. Yikes! Indeed, we are ALL spiritually dead. Dead men do not have any rights other than to be food for worms. They are incapable of responding to the outward general invitation from his "ambassadors" aside from an inward, discriminating, effectual work of grace which, YOU, Mr. B, think is a bunch of baloney. And it is pathetic. Anyway, no, I don't doubt you are saved because the HOW... of HOW God saves is NOT a salvific issue; but those who have assiduously strained their brains on the evidence have logically concluded that God's efficacious, irresistible call which is trumpeted by his ministers, will never fail to accomplish its designed purpose and intent; namely, of either the opening or closing of someone's eyes (Matt 11:25-26; Acts 16:14; Luke 24:45)...and does NOT depend on the free will of...."whosoever" while God sits around filing his nails that someone...ANYONE, would "oh pretty please just come to Christ NOW won't you, I'm begging you, do I have to get on my knees?" That is NOT the God of the Bible.
4:20 Dr White's criticism based on arguing 'incomplete exegesis' against his opponent is standard operating procedure for him. He always levels that one, ignore it.
Hey Pastor thank you for clarifying this. Jesus died for the world not for the elected. He gives us the choice to receive the gift of Salvation. I love they way you break down God's word
Keep fighting the good fight, brother! Like Paul the Apostle, who after his conversion from persecuting Christianity to becoming one of its greatest leaders, you are striving to persuade those who are still trapped in false beliefs as you once were to come to God for the truth and be set free as you have. May God bless you and increase both the great courage and great love you are already displaying by striving in this way!
You are sincerely deluded, and also, an outright hypocrite when mentioning Paul's conversion. What you DO NOT SAY, and what makes you a hypocrite, is that on the road to Damascus, he was not for MINUTE looking for Christ, but.... Christ was looking for HIM. And lo! It is the same for each and every one of us, contrary to J.B.'s theory of autonomous, libertarian free will to choose our salvation when we are damn good and ready! Count on it: ONLY HE can open our eyes to the truth (Luke 24:45; John 9:37-39, etc...). J.B. is 100% wrong! ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-tDllHID-Wpk.html
The parallel in John 6:39 & John 17:12 is worth noting: John 6:39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. John 17:12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled. It appears to me that Jesus was specifically talking about the disciples being given to Him by the Father. They were “The Chosen”. They had a specific purpose of being eyewitnesses to the life, death & resurrection of Christ. Jesus lost none of them, except Judas, who He knew would betray Him.
@@dustincampbell4835 There are times when Jesus is praying specifically for the disciples and there are times when He is praying for those who would believe on Jesus because of the disciples' testimonies.
@@PrudenceMcFrugal so every time Jesus is praying in a way that seems to confirm the reformed position of God's sovereignty in salvation it's really just for the disciples?
@@dustincampbell4835 Haha! No. Jesus literally says who He is praying for and when in the Gospel of John, which is what I referenced. John 17:9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine. - Jesus praying for His disciples John 17:20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word - Jesus praying for those who would believe on account of the testimony of the disciples and their preaching of the Gospel
Oh my. Soooo good. I love where Mr. White was so stumped that he had to make it personal. That there was some history in your life that made you come to this conclusion. The Word interprets itself. Well done. I’ve now subscribed . You are blessed . And thankyou
Oh, this should be good! Fascinating that John 6 is Calvinism's chair verse yet it doesnt REMOTELY say what they need it to say. Maybe we should write a the story of John 1-6 with just the names changed and maybe a different setting to get them thinking again 😉
Spare me you absolute stupidity that Calvinism does not even REMOTELY make their case. If we were in a debate, I suspect egg on your face at the end, thrown by all who witnessed the spectacle of you making a fool of yourself. As I just wrote to J.B.... We are totally uninterested in anything you have to say on Romans 9 since you have disqualified yourself to speak on this issue due to your error on the basics of John 3:16. We both know you will NEVER admit your error, as is typical of all human nature, so the last thing in the world I would ever do is tune in to your commentary on R-9. For those whose minds are open to truth, however, they will find out the literal rendering of J-3 reveals that "whosoever" is not even in the passage (!!!). It literally reads, "so that all believing ones shall not perish but have everlasting life", which instantly destroys your thesis and renders it null and void. Having established that "whosoever" is not in the Text, your assumption that God "gives this right to WHOSOEVER" (and him not even ENTERING the situation!). is theologically bankrupt. Yes, we must PREACH the gospel to "WHOSOEVER" because we, his ministers, have no idea which spiritually dead man will listen, but we plant the seed as Jesus instructed, and in that parable, he correctly states that no one knows the mechanics of exactly HOW it is able to germinate. Likewise, HOW he opens up someone's eyes, is beyond our understanding, but THAT he does definitely do this, is undeniable. Yet you have decided to l now spend your life...,DENYING IT. Yikes! Indeed, we are ALL spiritually dead. Dead men do not have any rights other than to be food for worms. They are incapable of responding to the outward general invitation from his "ambassadors" aside from an inward, discriminating, effectual work of grace which, YOU, Mr. B, think is a bunch of baloney. And it is pathetic. Anyway, no, I don't doubt you are saved because the HOW... of HOW God saves is NOT a salvific issue; but those who have assiduously strained their brains on the evidence have logically concluded that God's efficacious, irresistible call which is trumpeted by his ministers, will never fail to accomplish its designed purpose and intent; namely, of either the opening or closing of someone's eyes (Matt 11:25-26; Acts 16:14; Luke 24:45)...and does NOT depend on the free will of...."whosoever" while God sits around filing his nails that someone...ANYONE, would "oh pretty please just come to Christ NOW won't you, I'm begging you, do I have to get on my knees?" That is NOT the God of the Bible.
I was a Christian for years before I ever heard how the Calvinist interpret the Bible and I was shocked. I first encountered it when my high school christian school teacher said he didn't have to accept Jesus, because he was born a Christian under his parents "Covenant."
That's very strange. I've met many Calvinists and never heard of one who adheres to that kind of false doctrine. Any real Calvinist would agree that no one is saved without personally accepting Jesus.
@@danielorr7777 that’s very common that people like yourself don’t understand your own doctrines, That can also be said of believers who reject CALVANISM from other denominations
I’ll be watching tonight! Every weekend I do a Bible study with my mother and we have been going through John, we just got to John 6 this weekend and went through it. Regarding “all that the Father gives to Me will come to Me” COULD prove an unconditional election lottery before time, but only if you read it packing in presuppositions and pluck out the verse without context. We saw that if you read just a little further, MORE context is given, and who, how, and, WHY people are given from the Father to Jesus is told and it’s not because of arbitrarily being selected in an unconditional election… it is actually very conditional. in verse 45 Jesus says “It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’ Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.” So all are taught by God (we read this fleshed out more in Romans 1…) everyone has been taught by God, but like verse 45 says not everyone listens to the Fathers teaching, but everyone who LEARNS and LISTENS to the Father will naturally come to Jesus. “Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.” You also need to HEAR the Father. But are Calvinists actually suggesting that it is our holy God who is Love is the one keeping people from hearing Him? Let me echo Dave Hunt and ask what kind of love is this? Really, Calvinists need to lay off blaspheming God by trampling over His character by putting the Calvinist books down and actually spending time with the living God to where He is not a “concept” that gets philosophized and debated but actually pray and seek His face in a relationship so you can know the heart and character of the Father, reopen the Bible after a little time and maybe they won’t be so blinded by their doctrinal system and philosophies. Through knowing God not just knowing about God they would know that He is not a God who keeps people from Jesus. Romans 1 says that certain people WILLFULLY reject hearing God because THEY did not like to “retain God in their knowledge”… God was graciously speaking or convicting them in various ways and THEY were WILLFULLY doing all they could to push the light away. They willfully plug their ears to God, allow SATAN to blind them, and choose to exchange the truth they were given for a lie. (But not EVERY unbeliever goes this far as to what is described in Romans 1…to where they get given over to a debased mind … but we certainly see how this has happened to MANY people in our world today) So really, this should be very good news- the truth of John 6 and why the Father is giving certain people to Jesus, over the narrative calvinism wants to paint. I really do not know why Calvinists prefer to hold on to their dark dreadful doctrine other then they just don’t like that Jesus is actually the light and Savior of the world as He sacrificed Himself on the cross providing an atonement for everyone even those who would reject it. Does this offend them? The Pharisees were also offended at such good news of such a good Savior. People reject the Light because they prefer darkness rather than light. Excited to hear what you pulled out
The Pharisees believed in Self righteousness and rejected the Elect. Election removes any Self goodness or righteousness, as Gods grace is to the remnant ACCORDING TO ELECTION. This is exactly why you unregenerates hate Gods effectual grace, according to the remnant of election. You are decreed to be like the Pharisees and demand your own goodness and self justification, and the only thing that can pull your feet from the flames is the very thing you hate more than anything in heaven, and on earth, and that's God's effectual grace. Total depravity isn't imaginary, as absense of Truth is revealed by unregenerates every time they try teaching Gods Word.
@@ManassehJones LOL... Manny, you live in demonstrable deniability of your own doctrine. Nobody takes you seriously. And if you ever come to your senses... neither will you. Looking back in good conscience at your pious rants will serve to bring genuine humility at God's mercy. You say to those who disagree with you ; "the only thing that can pull your feet from the flames is the very thing you hate more than anything in heaven, and on earth, and that's God's effectual grace.".... You say that as an accusation which belies your own assertion that their hatred is by only by God's decree, as-if they had a choice🤦🏻♂ Why are you so upset all the time? If you were correct about Determinism, there is NOTHING that can pull someone's feet from the flames which God has determined for them. There is literally no reason for you to have any concern for the decreed fate of any person, other than to object to God's decree... and do so by ...God's decree 🤔Within the confines of your 'system' there is no justifiable hope for anyone. God's decree is what it is and, being 'unchangeable', all hope is futile by definition. Even those who, like yourself, claim election to salvation... cannot be certain God has not predestined them to eventual apostasy just like so many before you.
Good morning Jason , I hope you are doing well. My name is Drew. I've been following your out of Calvinism series. Thank you for your work. I have a question concerning John 6:37 in your latest video. "Everything that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I certainly will not cast out". At about 54:40 into the video you point that the verb "gives" and "comes" are both present tense active indicatives. Meaning that the subject is performing the action of those verbs. If the subject of the sentence is "All" ( which seems to be an nominative adjective, I guess it's functions as a noun in this sentence), how can the word " gives" be the action of/performed by the "All"? If the all are giving themselves wouldn't the word "gives" be in the middle voice? They would be performing the action of giving themselves to the son but the plain reading seems to say it is the Father who is performing the action if giving the all to the son. I do agree and follow your reasoning with "comes". The all are responsible for coming to the son. Are you saying that "All" is the subject? If so how does it sounds like the Father is doing the giving not the all? Am I understanding that correctly? Could this be a case where the voice of verb "gives" even though it's in the active voice is not really performed by the all but the Father?
That was an amazing explanation of John 6! I knew you were going to do a great job, the anointing is evident. Praise God! Best John 6 study I’ve heard. Thank you!
NONSENSE! Do not tell me for a MINUTE that what J.B. said was "ANNOINTED". Mr. White has already debunked him a second time around. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-tDllHID-Wpk.html
I appreciate what Mr. Breda tries to do but he does not understand the original language. His argument examples his lack of understanding. I’m sure Mr. Breda is a brother in Christ but he is NOT correctly explaining John 6.
@@ffjrichardson Correct. No one gets into heaven on the contingency of a perfect theology, so I don't worry about J.B.'s salvation because the MANNER IN WHICH God saves---i.e., how he opens the mind to reveal truth (Luke 24:45) is just as unknown as his creating a perfect caterpillar or anything else. However, the SIMPLICITY of the Text MUST prevail, and if it says God opened Lydia's heart to believe those things preached by Paul (Acts 16:14), then the subject is closed, and thus, our libertarian, autonomous free will to choose Christ is up to God Almighty, NOT US. Likewise, he will simply DULL the minds of those he has NOT chosen (John 9:37-39) all for his own good reasons. Yes, we can choose to, for example, wear green socks to go to work, but we may not choose to come to the Savior anytime we darn well please. Those APPOINTED to come to Christ will do so at... the APPOINTED TIME! And yes, J.B. is 100% wrong, especially his rendition of John 3:16. It is NOT "whosoever". Further research will tell him it is, "those believing".
James White's Calvinistic beliefs are as confusing as the shirt he's wearing here! ( a cheap shot,I know,but I'm just trying to lighten things up a bit! God bless!)
I am a Calvinist but I recognize that no theological construct can fully capture the ways of God in salvation. However, Calvinism best captures the sovereignty of God in all aspects of salvation which the Bible teaches but many reject for a man centered approach to God. I do not believe your exegesis is accurate on this text of John 6. There is not enough time to list all your mistakes with the greek text and how it works, but I would suggest that you contact James White and debate him directly. I heard you mention that there were true worshipers among the people of Samaria, but that is not what Jesus told the Samaritan woman (John 4:22 but Jesus did say that the Father was seeking them V.23). What Calvinism does is recognize that the Bible presents the workings of salvation from both the divine and human perspective. And from the Divine side it all starts with God Eph. 1:4 predestination before time (elected). That in time salvation is a birth John 3:3 and you had nothing to do with your first birth and neither the second by God. That you are first given to the Son by the Father then you come John 6:37. None could come unless the Father draws them John 6:44, and you are dead and then made alive (regenerated Eph 2:1) and all were blinded by the devil (2 Cor. 4:4). And God opens the eyes of the elect to bring them to salvation (Acts 26:18 to open their eyes, in order to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in Me.’)
WHITE: Heads up on, "motive." Motive, can only explain why something happened, BUT cannot reveal whether that something is true or false. White spends the majority of his presentations discussing the motive, character, or education of his opponent. ALL of that is irrelevant in determining whether an argument or position is true. But White has been using the discrediting of the person making the argument...for a very long time. Can an uneducated Walmart worker know the truth of scripture? Can an educated pastor, not know the truth of scripture? Yes, to both. White makes many claims about his opponents.....but NEVER produces any evidence that his accusations are true, e.g., "Leighton Flowers was never a Calvinist."
August 22, 2024 Soundbites@30:15 &ff> According to Jason Breda, "On John 6: 37, it does not say, ALL is the Elect...", Yes, I agree! It also does not say, "ALL is not the Elect...", agree?
Brilliant submission. I would add that Calvinism errs in the doctrine of election because if faith did not precede regeneration, then God would not even need Jesus to die for us. He simply would regenerate His Elect to believe and cause the Holy Spirit to purge us of our sins. But Jesus is the missing link. Not only to save us, but to CONFIRM His coming Kingdom He has sealed with His blood. Without pouring His blood, Jesus would not have legal rights to claim ownership.
No matter if you hold to Calvinism/Arminianism or anything else, Jesus had to die as Hebrews 9:22 says “without the shedding of blood there can be no forgiveness of sins. So honest question….the same way you ask why God can’t just regenerate His elect, why can’t someone ask you why can’t God just give them faith?
@@LeviJames3764 Seems like @fidelamoah9115 is making a statement, not asking a question. To answer your question, I would say that God didn't create us to be robots. We were created in His image.
Maybe I had high hopes for your video. However when we got to John 6, from min 38 to 55, there were no proof to even continue Min 44 - you claim vs 29 is misused, waiting to see how… I listened all the way to min 55 and there was no mention… maybe you do it later, so I will hold back judgement. Min 46 you interjects the elect / world dichotomy in an emotional way (not in John 6:33), but maybe you forgot the prayer in John 17 where Jesus does not pray for the world? Min 49 - here he is over imposing a position that Calvinist do not believe that people don’t do the work of believe? Where do Calvinist state that we do not believe? Serious emotional and psychological atrocity on minute 50:52… why? Because you make a semantic appeal that words like chosen, elect, etc are not present in the text. There are no areas in the Bible that use the word “Trinity” and JW and other Arians can use the same tactic to combat trinitarian Christianity. This is just an emotional appeal and not warranted by the scripture. The word “All” in verse 37 is explained in Jesus following words “that the father gives me”… now what is Steven Lawson saying? He is elaborating that those who the Father gave to Jesus (the all) have been chosen. What both group believe is that believers are chosen… some believe that they are chosen by the foreknowledge of God where God saw that you will have faith, believe and repentance of sin. And those who believe God, out of His own good will and pleasure, chose some, not by works but by His own will. Then in 54 you miss the parallelism that 1. All the Father gives to Jesus - COME 2. Those who come to Jesus - Jesus will not cast out And what is the connection? The Father given them to Jesus.
I see your study has not been to inductively gain what the text is saying but to prove CALVINISM wrong. Listening to you it is evident you are trying wrest those passages in Chap. 6 from the clear understanding they INDUCTIVELY possess, seeing it just doesn't flow. Only those who the Father draws will come to Christ and NOONE comes to Christ on their own. In fact, 45 teaches that and is supported by Acts 13 : 48. Unconditional election is a factual scriptual doctrine that can't be disproved no matter how hard one tries. PS. I am NOT a CALVINIST but a believer who clearly sees unconditional election taught in scripture.
Acts 13:48 is a tough one for someone who has been taught Calvinism. If you’re told what Calvinism is, more so this is how God works in salvation and then go to the Scriptures with that in mind…you totally see Acts 13:48 like that. But read that in context, this is another example of true gentile worshipers of God who have the gospel of Jesus proclaimed to them and they rejoice! The ordained to eternal life is focusing on them receiving the Holy Spirit (spiritual life). But they were already true worshipers of God and received the gospel with joy and gladness.
Quite the contrary. He was a calvinist, and one who tried to prove it out in defense of it, but was surprised at his realization it didn't work. For a lot of calvinists, their calvinism becomes central to their faith and when challenged this often induces a crisis. So after getting his head on straight and starting over without those presuppositions he shares the problems he had and a calvinism free but fully contextually based Bible interpretation... so he addresses calvinism as he does this to show the disparity, but the GOAL isn't to disprove calvinism as he wasn't anti-calvinism but pro. His criticism of it now is based wholly on his biblical attempts to defend it not working, and once freed of that systematic, the text says something very different. Half into this video he zooms out and starts a context based hermeneutics process, and you can explicitly see that his explanation of that context doesn't take theological school of thought into account at all, but focuses on John's narrative in the 1st century context... then the following points of contention are dealt with primarily with grammar. He only addresses calvinism here by way of contrast: because he USED to read it that way, so the comparison is inevitable and natural for anyone who changed their mind about such an all encompassing set of ideas.
1)- most uses of the word election are either corporate, are for a purpose and not unto salvation (like repeated references to national or ethnic Israel, even as sinners amd rebels under judgement), or individuals chosen for a task... or Jesus being the fulfillment of the servant Israel in prophecy... the messiah, ie: the chosen one (elect). 2)- But where this is used in a more strictly soteriological sense, its overtly conditional: you aren't just saved regardless with no conditions, that's the opposite of the gospel. Only those who BELIEVE are chosen. That's not unconditional. What it isn't is conditioned by works. That you have to believe doesn't make it meritorious. Faith is not a work.
@@Loves2HugItOut First and foremost, I avoid sectarian tags like a plague. The doctrine of unconditional election is clear from scripture and we'll do well to accept it and give God the thanks and praises for chosing us in Christ and calling us thus. However, I don't think it was meant to be the grounds for identity separation in the body. I am this...I am that...sows seeds of sectarianism subliminally. That said, there are some extremes about CALVINISM that I don't believe aligns perfectly with scripture: Limited atonement: this is rather extreme in its interpretation seeing that the scriptures do not support it. Christ was displayed publicly as the propitiation of the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2). This atoning work is available for ALL to avail themselves of it, alas, we all being dead in our sins an trespasses can not ever respond accordingly. We were dead! Then God steps in and by mercy and awesome grace, calls some He has foreknown and gave them to believe. And in believing, He freely justifies them and bestows His own righteousness on them. For by this grace only, have we all been saved! Hallelujah. On this grounds also will many, sadly, be condemned, seeing they rejected God's testimony about His Son. (1 John 5 : 9 - 12) Hence, the atonement is there for all, but only those He quickens by calling (or drawing them) can respond and believe. This is my qualms with limited atonement. But outside this, I have no issue whatsoever with the other points of TULIP.
It seems like a lot of false teaching, and cultural chaos we’re experiencing is related to man’s predisposition to the primal sin of pride. This was also Adam’s sin. It’s not plain disobedience or lack of understanding. There is an overwhelming sense of pride and self importance and glorying in ‘wisdom’ which is associated with the false doctrines of Calvinism.
Thank you for the time and effort you took in putting this together and teaching it with grace. I was a little peeved at Mr. White passive aggresively questioning your motives and DL asking someone to email him something about you, but if you can let it slide by so can I. Stay strong in the face of the Calvinist backlash you're surely getting and will continue to get, and much prayer for you in your interactions with your Calvinist thorn in the flesh, Manasseh Jones 😁😁
@ericedwards, It's so ironic how Calvinist's tend to be so ungracious in presenting and defending the "Doctrines of Grace" Dr. White seems to be at the top of this class.
@@ericedwards8902 Since his doctrine is indefensible, attacking those who oppose it is his only recourse. It's the mark of a failed argument. In the end, the Calvinist has two positions; 1. God has not granted you the 'gnosis' ability to understand what I claim to understand. 2. God's way are not our ways and these things I claim to be true are ...tooo.. 'mysterious' for out pea-sized brain.
@@R.L.KRANESCHRADTT yessir! I was showing my daughter yesterday in a commentary I havehow the Calvinists appeal to mystery when they get stuck trying to defend an unbiblical position.
Excellent work brother!! I have been taught Calvinist teachings for 20 years and now I believe you are right. I have always struggled with the contradictions and starting to see it more clearly but it is so hard for me to not keep slipping back into Calvinist thinking. Thanks for your hard work that God predestined you to do 😂
Calvinism Protestantism basically every other religion. If you’re still wilfully sinning against God you don’t have Grace! “For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age,” Titus 2:11-12 “Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.” Matthew 5:48 “But let patience have its perfect work, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking nothing.” James 1:4 “Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless;” II Peter 3:14 “Love has been perfected among us in this: that we may have boldness in the day of judgment; because as He is, so are we in this world.” I John 4:17 ““But everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand: and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it fell. And great was its fall.”” Matthew 7:26-27 “Him we preach, warning every man and teaching every man in all wisdom, that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus.” Colossians 1:28 "Pursue peace with all people, and holiness, without which no one will see the Lord: looking carefully lest anyone fall short of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up cause trouble, and by this many become defiled;" Hebrews 12:14-15 "Therefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and rest your hope fully upon the grace that is to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ; as obedient children, not conforming yourselves to the former lusts, as in your ignorance; but as He who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, because it is written, "Be holy, for I am holy." And if you call on the Father, who without partiality judges according to each one's work, conduct yourselves throughout the time of your stay here in fear." 1 Peter 1:13-17 "And do you think this, O man, you who judge those practicing such things, and doing the same, that you will escape the judgment of God? Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance? But in accordance with your hardness and vour impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who "will render to each one according to his deeds": eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness-indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek; but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For there is no partiality with God." Romans 2:3-11
Good job brother 👌 ! I'm writing articles in french about these themes: predestination, election, interpretation, John 6, roman 9...let these truths propagate like a fire. We need more people doing more videos, and writing more books and more articles and saturate google algorithm to let the truth be known.
Will you be including the fact that J.B. was 100% wrong on John 3:16? As I just wrote to him... We are totally uninterested in anything you have to say on Romans 9 since you have disqualified yourself to speak on this issue due to your error on the basics of John 3:16. We both know you will NEVER admit your error, as is typical of all human nature, so the last thing in the world I would ever do is tune in to your commentary on R-9. For those whose minds are open to truth, however, they will find out the literal rendering of J-3 reveals that "whosoever" is not even in the passage (!!!). It literally reads, "so that all believing ones shall not perish but have everlasting life", which instantly destroys your thesis and renders it null and void. Having established that "whosoever" is not in the Text, your assumption that God "gives this right to WHOSOEVER" (and him not even ENTERING the situation!). is theologically bankrupt. Yes, we must PREACH the gospel to "WHOSOEVER" because we, his ministers, have no idea which spiritually dead man will listen, but we plant the seed as Jesus instructed, and in that parable, he correctly states that no one knows the mechanics of exactly HOW it is able to germinate. Likewise, HOW he opens up someone's eyes, is beyond our understanding, but THAT he does definitely do this, is undeniable. Yet you have decided to l now spend your life...,DENYING IT. Yikes! Indeed, we are ALL spiritually dead. Dead men do not have any rights other than to be food for worms. They are incapable of responding to the outward general invitation from his "ambassadors" aside from an inward, discriminating, effectual work of grace which, YOU, Mr. B, think is a bunch of baloney. And it is pathetic. Anyway, no, I don't doubt you are saved because the HOW... of HOW God saves is NOT a salvific issue; but those who have assiduously strained their brains on the evidence have logically concluded that God's efficacious, irresistible call which is trumpeted by his ministers, will never fail to accomplish its designed purpose and intent; namely, of either the opening or closing of someone's eyes (Matt 11:25-26; Acts 16:14; Luke 24:45)...and does NOT depend on the free will of...."whosoever" while God sits around filing his nails that someone...ANYONE, would "oh pretty please just come to Christ NOW won't you, I'm begging you, do I have to get on my knees?" That is NOT the God of the Bible.
Third time through. I play this while I work. This is the type of content I want to make. Just a chapter by chapter deep dive until I've done the whole Bible
For those interested, John 6 does not start until minute 38… the beginning till then he does try to give a summary of the gospel of John… Now the question is, will the exegetical work stay in John 6, word by word in context, or would it jump like James White always presupposes?
Am still learning about this “controversy”. But, isn’t the reformers, other than solely rely on John 6, they also refer to John 17, Deut. 10, Mt 24, Rom 8, 11, 1 Cor 1, Eph 1, 1 Thes 1, 5, 2 Thes 2, 1 Peter 1,2 to support their idea of election in their reason for Unconditional Election?
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 06:29 *📖 John 6:37-35 - Calvinists believe only the elect are drawn by the Father, but this belief is debunked as faith precedes regeneration in John.* 09:35 *🕊️ John focuses on belief for everlasting life, emphasizing that anyone who believes will have eternal life, not just the elect.* 13:29 *🕍 John's Gospel is seen as predominantly for a Jewish audience, with references to the law and the prophets highlighting the Messiah's fulfillment.* 33:44 *🍞 Jesus, as the Messiah, emphasizes belief in the Father and the Son for unity in the Godhead.* 44:10 *🔍 Knowing Jewish sacrifices, offerings, covenants, and Old Testament figures aids in understanding John's themes and context.* 47:35 *🕊️ Jesus's statement "he who comes to me" in John 6:35 implies individual responsibility in choosing to believe.* 48:30 *🍞 Jesus being called the "raised showbread" signifies absolute fullness of life in Jewish culture.* 50:21 *💡 John 6:37 emphasizes the continual giving by the Father to the Son, based on individual responsibility and belief in Jesus.* 01:05:21 *🌟 The present active and indicative tenses in John 6:37 emphasize individual responsibility and action in coming to Jesus, refuting Calvinistic interpretations.* 01:13:17 *📖 John 6:47 emphasizes individual responsibility in believing in Jesus for everlasting life, refuting Calvinism's view of predestined salvation.* 01:14:52 *🍞 Jesus highlights the importance of partaking in Him symbolically through eating His flesh and drinking His blood, signifying eternal life through faith and belief.* 01:15:19 *🔄 The text argues against Calvinism by asserting that salvation comes through hearing, learning, and trusting in Jesus, rather than being preordained by God.* Made with HARPA AI
It is astonishing what inventive, incorrect, and complex arguments men will use to avoid the clear teaching of Scripture and deny God's sovereignty in salvation.
@@PCX425 no brother, unfortunately the majority of what he did here was read into the text, prove he doesn't know how to parse Greek, and suggest a strange disunity within the Godhead where someone can freely come to one Person of the Trinity (the Father), and thereby enable the Father to give them to another Person of the Trinity (the Son).
@@dustincampbell4835 Full disclosure, I do find your original comment ironic since calvinism is almost always refuted by the context or by simply interpreting the less clear scripture in light of clearer scripture, which again, are basic rules of interpretation.
Calvinism seems has similar doctrines with other religious groups. If you are not a member of their Church you will not be saved.... Calvinism or Reformed Theology likewise says if you are not a Calvinist or Reformed Christians you do not understand the Word of God...
The ability to say "I humbled myself and believed." or "I listened and understood, then I decided to believe." is a strong appeal to the flesh and pride of man that he did something other men wouldn't do. 33:50 - So, you're saying the Jews had to make themselves worshippers of God and abide in the scriptures before they could believe in Jesus? Sounds like works righteousness to me. On the other hand, if Jesus meant that these things hadn't been given to them by the Father as the reason for their unbelief, then it flows with what we read in John 6. 35:25 - Do we make ourselves "of God"?
Hello 👋 Here’s part of John Calvin’s commentary on John 3:16 And he has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the import of the term World, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life. Let us remember, on the other hand, that while life is promised universally to all who believe in Christ, still faith is not common to all. For Christ is made known and held out to the view of all, but the elect alone are they whose eyes God opens, that they may seek him by faith. Here, too, is displayed a wonderful effect of faith; for by it we receive Christ such as he is given to us by the Father - that is, as having freed us from the condemnation of eternal death, and made us heirs of eternal life, because, by the sacrifice of his death, he has atoned for our sins, that nothing may prevent God from acknowledging us as his sons. Since, therefore, faith embraces Christ, with the efficacy of his death and the fruit of his resurrection, we need not wonder if by it we obtain likewise the life of Christ.” Many see Calvin affirming the Father’s lie of the world and Christ’s offering to be universal. He also obviously believes that faith is only given to the elect, thus canceling out the ability for the atonement to be universal. So I think Calvin didn’t fully work this out while others would say he did. Seems to me he was wrestling with this.
Excellent video. Cordial and very well thought out and presented. Would you consider addressing the Catholic/Orthodox view of John 6 in another video? I would be interested to see how you would approach it. As you know, it comes from a completely different angle than Calvinism. Thanks and God bless
I'd have to say when it comes John 6:37 you inserted the "will" of the person without taking into account John 6:44. John 6:44 ESV "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day." So is it the will of the Father or the will of the human?
You talked on "elect" in the Old Testament, we see David chosen over his brother's, then you got Jacob I love, Esau I hated. Then in the "All"" you read John chapter 17, Jesus praying over what God gave Him as well the scribes and Pharisees being told, by Jesus. They don't need him but he comes for the poor, the lost... which they did not believe Jesus was the Sonof God, who God was in flesh.
Why do you spend so much time pulling individual verses before getting to the chapter? You even bring up questions that involve answers to things you will deal with later.
Another great in depth video that is easy to follow. Planning to watch this a few times. Thank you! I was just wondering if you could share what resources you use/ recommend?
@@GoodBereanI commented 20 minutes too early! Thank you! I recently invested in Logos and decided to go Academic vs commentary for original languages for exactly this reason. I just need to learn how to use it now
@@GoodBerean, Question: Why did Jesus choose Judas then? Remember, Judas had come not to believe, but to betray the Master, and Jesus knew this in advance!
@@abjoseck9548 yes He did know. But Jesus also washed Judas’ feet. God can know the outcome while at the same time desire for people to believe without forcing it on them. And He still shows love to those who He knows will choose to turn away. In Calvinism Why would Jesus show love to Judas knowing He predetermined Judas to betray Him? Why would Judas be judged by something God decreed him to do?
@@GoodBerean, it is not that Jesus "loves" Judas as you wrongly assumed. Judas was drawn by the Father to Jesus (cf. Jn 6:44-45, 6:65), Jesus then chose Judas not because he believed, but because the Godhead had a plan for Judas to be part of the divine instrument to accomplish the Redemptive Plan. This is a rare display of God's attribute of aseity! Consider this. Why do think Jesus did not even welcome the group of people who were following Him earlier? On the contrary, Jesus even humiliated them before the public eye by unmasking their selfish motive of using Christ as the source of benefits for the cravings of their hungry stomach (Jn 6:26). In the case of Judas, Jesus didn't even expose publicly his evil intention, saying: "Judas, come here, what's wrong with you? Why are you betraying me/will betray me in the future? Repent!" No, Jesus didn't do that. This is in sharp contrast to Christ's treatment of the selfish crowd whose inner motives are of lesser evil than that of Judas! I consider this historical account as the revelation about God's sovereign choice & will, prevailing upon/over man's plans & intentions. And His will/choice is not contingent upon man's decision... More to the point. What does the "Judas Factor" teach us from the Scriptures (cf:Jn 6:70-71)? It teaches us that your claim, "those who are receptive to the teachings of the Father, those who chose to learn & to believe, are the ones who will be drawn by the Father to Jesus...”, is absolutely wrong & antibiblical to the core! To reiterate, the Father is the sole & primary, independent, causative agent in drawing people to Christ regardless of their motive. (i.e. one guy has a utilitarian motive yet he didn't make it to Jesus. Another guy came, by the name of Judas, consumed with vicious, wicked & evil intentions-a consummate traitor, yet was drawn by the Father, straight to Jesus' circle!). The divine act of drawing here is grounded on the Sovereign will /intention & purpose of God not on man's "responsible act of choosing", as you wrognly presupposed! And for the record, Jason, please be very careful how you treat Calvinists like me and others. You have gone too far in associating us with the cunning work of the devil, stop it, please! That's foul, not an exemplary behavior of somebody known to be a Christian.
I really appreciate the presentation of John 6. I do hold to a mostly Calvinist position. I fully embrace that the coming, believing, listening and learning are actions on the part of the person being drawn. But I think the text also shows that God's giving of these individuals to the Son is what is behind these people's steps towards the Son.
Sb@33:30 &ff> "You are now given the opportunity to trust or choose to reject..." Question, what is one's spiritual status if he/she suspends her belief for a moment, neither trusting nor rejecting Jesus?
i got to min 2:57 before saying enough.first off your talking then your intro starts at twice the volume, then you ask to like and subscribe before you present any content , why would i do that.
August 13, 2024 @@GoodBerean , Thanks for your reply after one month. My follow-up question: Is this a regular part of your life or is it once in a blue moon?
I want to establish your position to make sure you have based it on the syntax/sequence of the statements as relayed in Jn 6: 44-45, that way the context is established. Remember John 6 is written as a coherent discourse with the contextual flow of the thought, connecting the immediately preceding verse/s with the succeeding verse/s flowing with it. Calvinists like me would interpret Jn 6:44-45 as the " unconditional drawing" or enabling act of the Father, coming first before the people drawn could come to Christ. This means that: 1) The people who were drawn by the Father (i.e. Jews & Gentiles) are those who were taught by, heard & learned from the Father as the passages suggest. 'People who are so ensnared in the quicksand of sin & unbelief' that unless the Father draws them they are hopeless & Christless. 2) The statement "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them" sets the prescribed condition before they could come to Christ. This explicates the worthless efforts of the grumbling crowd who pursued Jesus for self-serving purposes. Later, Jesus harked back to the “Jn 6:44-45 Principle” in 6:65 in answer to the grumbling crowd who rejected his credibility as the One sent by the Father > "Are you trying to understand my position better or are you trying to find something to throw back at me? Honest question." My honest reply>I am engaging your hermeneutics Jason Breda, remember at the end of your video, you made a conclusion that your explication of Jn 6 "cancels out Calvinism". Not only that, you have associated Calvinism w/ the "strategy of the devil to distort the truth...". Last question. With my simplified explication of Jn 6:44-45, how does it connect with Jn 6:70-71?
The question is who are the drawn ones and did the father choose the ones who are being drawn and on that basis can we call those the choosen ones or the ELECT OF GOD. STOP DANCING AROUND THE TEXT.....
Wow! Calvinism has made this so confusing! Man made doctrines muddy the waters! Even the teaching on the trinity. John 1:1,14 Jesus is the Word of God made flesh. You need to understand that this is the critical verse to unlock all of the book of John. 6:63 the Words are Spirit and they are life! :68 you have the Words of eternal life! Jesus is the Word of God and the Word is the Spirit of God and believing the Word (Jesus) is what saves you. James 1:18 confirms this. James warns us not to be hearers only but to take action or our faith will be useless. James 2:20-26 God is One! Deuteronomy 6:4 He is the Word, He is the Spirit, He is the Son! Jesus is the Word of God in Flesh! When Jesus said we must eat his flesh, He is saying we must consume his word and believe it by doing it! James 2:20-26 faith without works is Dead! Anti- works doctrine is another false doctrine! Believe Gods Word(Jesus) and do it!!
Right away you've really summed up everything. You make the claim that you now see God's character clearly so all the texts are filtered through your pre-supposition that "you" know God's character so an exegesis of the text can only be correct through your lens. That sounds very familiar...hmmm were have we heard that before. So did you list all of God's attributes or just the ones you like or think will make the text say what you want it to say. John Piper was right, every objection to a calvinist interpretation starts with " It cannot be, so the text can't mean that." It is amazing how you say I am just going to walk through the text as if calvinists don't do that. What about God's character when he killed millions in the flood. He knew the result of creating those people from the moment he created them. As a matter of fact, he knew the result from eternity past since God is timeless. The fact that all of those people would perish. Did he love them? The same way he loves you? Or did God not know the result of his creating them and was learning and reacting to his creation. Then of coarse you are an open theist, which is your only real option if you are not a calvinist. I have listened and see alot of good and biblical points but non that dispute calvinism. The comment regarding the end times is also a problem since it seems like you are dispensational also. ( not a topic for this video so I am surprised you mentioned it)
2 Corinthians 5:20. “We are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf on Christ, be reconciled to God” Amazing that us followers of Christ have the privilege to partake in Christs drawing of all people. John 12:32.
The Bible being read to people and Christians witnessing to people are a few ways The Holy Spirit draws people towards Him! If I tell someone God loves you and He is drawing you into Himself then the person gets the message.
