Calvinism and Grace are NOT Compatible! - Ralph Yankee Arnold 

That's great! I was born into a Christ cult, (Mormonism) then drifted away from all faith for decades. 2015 I felt the spirit of conviction come upon me and kneeled before Christ and asked for forgiveness of my sins. Last September I started attending a local AOG church, while simultaneously listening to Calvinist preachers. (Voddie Bauchame, R.C. Sprouls, etc) I started heading down the road of another Christ cult. (Calvinism) What saved me from that, was actually reading the bible in a bible study group in my church. It made me realize that we can stray from the faith. It's why Paul in Philippians, tells the believers, to "Embrace the good things." We have to CHOOSE to rejoice, in the Lord. we have to CHOOSE to give Christ our faith. we are not saved through salvation, we are saved through OUR faith. Since then, I've started to see some stark similarities between Mormonism and Calvinism. The Calvinist will more likely quote MacArthur, Sproul, or White, instead of quoting the bible. Just like the lost Mormon, they use proof texts out of context to support their wicked false gospel.

Salvation By Grace I was just debating one tonight that kept trying to use the proof text of Ephesians 2:8-9 (twisting the text) and Romans 3:22 (taking it completely out of context - the context is verse 21-31). The problem is, it's very hard to use logic from the Bible to breakthrough. I've started trying a different tactic as of yet it hasn't worked. I start with the fact that faith isn't works. You can no more brag about how much faith you have, than how much air you have in your house. I continue to limited atonement. This one is harder, as again they're dead set on their exegetical interpretation of the Bible. There is logic that can be applied here however. Is God infinite? Then why are you limiting atonement? You don't believe in God, you believe in a demi-God that can't save the world, as he promised in the Bible.

Limited Atonement and Perseverance of the Saints are false. But Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, and Irresistible Grace are biblical doctrines: John 6 = Calvinist Truth! ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-UAwIa0BRmi4.html& Romans 8 PROVES Total Depravity and Unconditional Election! ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-eBGBx4Tdajk.html&

@@Hebrew42Day we’re saved because of God’s faithfulness, not because of our level of faithfulness. i do agree that we have a choice to place faith in Christ Jesus or not, and that faith is a catalyst for receiving forgiveness and salvation. but be encouraged that we can't lose our salvation. Jesus says so, and we are to submit to what He has determined. “As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life. “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.” ‭‭John‬ ‭3:14-16‬ “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and *the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out.* For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. This is the will of Him who sent Me, that *of all that He has given Me I lose nothing,* but raise it up on the last day.” ‭‭John‬ ‭6:37-39‬ ‭ “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and *no one will snatch them out of My hand.* My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and *no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.””* ‭‭John‬ ‭10:27-30‬ “I am no longer in the world; and yet they themselves are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep them in Your name, the name which You have given Me, that they may be one even as We are.” ‭‭John‬ ‭17:11‬b these verses explain our security of salvation as well: For men swear by one greater than themselves, and with them an oath given as confirmation is an end of every dispute. In the same way God, desiring even more to show to the heirs of the promise the unchangeableness of His purpose, interposed with an oath, so that by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have taken refuge would have strong encouragement to take hold of the hope set before us. This hope we have as an anchor of the soul, a hope both sure and steadfast and one which enters within the veil, where Jesus has entered as a forerunner for us, having become a high priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.” ‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭6:16-20‬ ‭ “The former priests, on the one hand, existed in greater numbers because they were prevented by death from continuing, but Jesus, on the other hand, because *He continues forever,* holds His priesthood permanently. Therefore *He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.”* ‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭7:23-25‬ “For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have been defiled sanctify for the cleansing of the flesh, *how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?* And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment, so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will *appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.”* ‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭9:13-14, 27-28‬ ‭ “After saying above, “SACRIFICES AND OFFERINGS AND WHOLE BURNT OFFERINGS AND sacrifices FOR SIN YOU HAVE NOT DESIRED, NOR HAVE YOU TAKEN PLEASURE in them ” (which are offered according to the Law), then He said, “BEHOLD, I HAVE COME TO DO YOUR WILL.” He takes away the first in order to establish the second. By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.” ‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭10:8-10‬ ‭ *”For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.* And the Holy Spirit also testifies to us; for after saying, “THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THEM AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD: I WILL PUT MY LAWS UPON THEIR HEART, AND ON THEIR MIND I WILL WRITE THEM,” He then says, *”AND THEIR SINS AND THEIR LAWLESS DEEDS I WILL REMEMBER NO MORE.””* *”Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sin.* Therefore, brethren, since we have confidence to enter the holy place by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way which He inaugurated for us through the veil, that is, His flesh, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, *let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith,* having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. BUT MY RIGHTEOUS ONE SHALL LIVE BY FAITH; AND IF HE SHRINKS BACK, MY SOUL HAS NO PLEASURE IN HIM. But we are not of those who shrink back to destruction, but of those who have faith to the preserving of the soul.” ‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭10:14-17‬, 18-22, 38-39‬ ‭ “Make sure that your character is free from the love of money, being content with what you have; for He Himself has said, *”I WILL NEVER DESERT YOU, NOR WILL I EVER FORSAKE YOU,* so that we confidently say, “THE LORD IS MY HELPER, I WILL NOT BE AFRAID. WHAT WILL MAN DO TO ME?”” ‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭13:5-6

@@ProjectCould Everyone that’s in Hell resisted Grace.

That's exactly the point: Calvinists don't believe in a free will. And so they don't believe that a person can accept or reject the free grace of god. Just one example of many to show that they're wrong: "He came unto his own, and his own received him not. *But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:* (John 1, 11-12) Calvinism is SO unscriptual, that it's even difficult to find a beginning here.

Sarah Pettersson I don't understand why Calvinists use that verse. What does it prove?

+Stephen Whitfield, your right, it was due to our given abilities, by God. God granted us the ability to choose to Love or to Hate, and through that choice, Adam and Eve chose the serpent over God, Abraham chose God over his son, and to this day we are still faced with this choice. God loved us so desperately that He even regarded His own life as possessing lesser value than ours. If He granted us absolutely no positive quality whatsoever, then Christ for the evil He self-imposed in the first place, making his sacrifice pointless since we are no more or less "Predestined" before VS after Christ. Your choice... but as for me and my household, we serve the Lord!--WILLFULLY!!!

Tyler, a gift (salvation) is offered to all. My accepting the gift is not " work," but it is a choice of my will.

@@sheilasmith7779 John 1:12-13 "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, 13  who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh NOR OF THE WILL OF MAN, but of God." Well that's not according to explicit scripture. Scripture states to the contrary. You should stop reading scripture with your presuppositions about what is fair. God owes salvation to know one but chooses whom They will for their own glory. No one can come to Christ unless they are given to Christ by the Father.

@@sheilasmith7779 As the Christ follower, you are correct and the John Calvin follower is incorrect. He completely ignored the first part of John 1:12-13 where it says “BUT AS MANY AS RECEIVED HIM, HE GAVE THE POWER TO BECOME CHILDREN OF GOD, EVEN TO THEM THAT BELIEVE ON HIS NAME”. Any sincere Christian knows that “we love God because HE FIRST LOVED US”. Our love back to Him, our receiving Him, our faith in Him, our coming unto Him, etc. is ALWAYS in response to His offer of salvation (as faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God). It’s a childlike faith in response to God the Father giving us His Son (John 3:16). Jesus says “come unto me” and we respond. That is God drawing us to Himself. Unfortunately, these fatalists don’t believe that it is GOD’S WILL that all men would be saved. Furthermore, what baffles me is that they seem more concerned with telling you in a veiled way that God does not love you and that Christ did not die for you than they do about preaching the true gospel and loving their neighbor as themselves. Where is the good news in that? My advice: don’t waste your precious time arguing with them. -Grace and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ ✝️🍞🍷🙏🏼😇

@@screenwriter79 You can't will the new birth. Only God can give you the new birth, but you can receive Christ, and when you do, God gives you the new birth. Simple isn't it? It wasn't for Calvin. Who does God give the new birth? "But as many as received him." Your either confused or your not saved.

+marcos martinez Right on.

+john John, I've encountered this question more than once. Funny how often people seem to assume that "Perfect Sovereignty" entails the inability to relinquish and/or pass-along control. So to answer your question as simply as possible, God grants all people the power to choose, thus we are saved by the freedom God enables! The mistake both Calvinists and Arminians make is the denial of the definition of a "Relationship", and consequently, the denial of having any relationship with God. Because if God did absolutely everything, and we did nothing, that is a none-existent relationship. Likewise, if Humans decided everything and God did nothing, that too would entail NO relationship. The only way a true bond can be established is if BOTH sides contribute. In the case at hand, God contributes both by creating us, and then by enabling us the authority to selectively Love Him or Hate Him. And then we contribute back to God by answering His Sacrifice with a "Yes/No" response. P.S.: If you deny God the ability to grant authority, then he is not truly in complete control by lacking control over His own ability to control. Meaning, God having the ultimate authority proves absolutely nothing about how much authority He grants us (who are made in His image). Put more simply, on its own, Sovereignty cannot deny Free Will without denying God of having "Perfect" Sovereignty. P.S.P.S.: If this answer is not sufficient for you, then I could copy&paste Points 4 and 32 of Anti-Calvinism; which discuss exactly what you just inquired...

+john John, allow me to make a simplified questionable response... Is God the source of our Choices themselves, or is God the source of our ability to make Choices? --As similar as these may seem, they imply two extremely different outcomes...

Amen!

Don’t worry, we’re all unworthy. That’s the whole point. That’s why it’s out of our hands, and in Jesus’

Or at least, out of our hands other than to choose Jesus, and expect Him in all His power to take care of that fact (which He has) and save us.

And we don’t have to understand how (beyond Him taking our place, the how is something even the angels who are perfect and have been around much longer than us balk and marvel at - if they can’t fully grasp it, how can we?). We just need to know that it does and will happen, we believe in Him, and He takes it from there

Yeah they don't say that. This whole sermon is filled with straw men and false assumptions.

Aaron Kronawetter you don’t understand Calvinism.

@@aaronkronawetter6169 Thanks for the comment, hope you are doing good. I just wanted to share some things I've been seeing in the word lately. This is amazing truth. Please let me know your thoughts about it... The writer of Hebrews said that Christ died *FOR THE SINS COMMITTED UNDER THE FIRST COVENANT.* We were not under the first Covenant. Hebrews 9:15 ...For Christ died to set *THEM* free from the penalty of the sins *THEY had committed UNDER THAT FIRST COVENANT.* We did not commit sins under that first Covenant. Also...Jesus said... He was *ONLY* sent to the lost sheep of the house of Isreal. That is not us. Matthew 15:24 But He answered and said, *"I was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of the house of Isreal."* Acts 5:31 He is the one whom God exalted to His right hand as a Prince and a Savior, *TO GRANT REPENTANCE to ISRAEL, and FORGIVENESS of SINS.* It's all about ISRAEL... not us. Also... Paul said... *Jesus was sent TO REDEEM THOSE WHO WERE UNDER THE LAW.* Galatians 4:4-5 4But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, *BORN UNDER THE LAW, 5So that He might REDEEM THOSE WHO WERE UNDER THE LAW...* We were never under the law. Romans 3:19 Now we know that whatever the law says, *IT SAYS TO THOSE WHO ARE UNDER THE LAW...* Psalm 147:19-20 19He declares His word to *JACOB,* His statutes and judgments to *ISRAEL.* 20He has done this for *NO OTHER NATION;* they do not know His judgments Hallelujah! Amos 3:1-2 *1People of ISRAEL,* I rescued you from Egypt. Now listen to my judgment against you. 2 Of all NATIONS on earth, *you are the ONLY ONE I HAVE CHOSEN. THAT'S WHY I will punish YOU because of YOUR sins.* The second Covenant was ONLY for the ones under the first Covenant, those under the law. That would be Israel. Only Israel was under the law. Hebrews 8:10 For this is the *COVENANT* that I will make *WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL...* We were never under a Covenant at all. This is fantastic news for us. God's love, mercy and grace is much greater than we ever thought possible. I believe the Parable of the lost sheep is a picture of God's love for ALL people ever created. The house of Isreal represents the one lost sheep. They were the ONLY ONES that needed to be redeemed from the curse of being under the first Covenant law. Luke 19:10 For the Son of man is come to seek and to save *THAT WHICH WAS LOST.* Apparently not ALL were lost, right? *That's why Jesus said He was ONLY sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.* Amos 3:1-2 *1People of ISRAEL,* I rescued you from Egypt. Now listen to my judgment against you. 2 Of all NATIONS on earth, *you are the ONLY ONE I HAVE CHOSEN. THAT'S WHY I will punish YOU because of YOUR sins.* God agreed to impute Israel's sin to THEM under that Old Covenant. Then He Himself paid the debt THEY incurred under that Covenant. Romans 5:13 For until the law sin was in the world: *BUT SIN IS NOT IMPUTED WHEN THERE IS NO LAW.* Romans 4:8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord *WILL NOT IMPUTE SIN.* *We are blessed because we are not under the law and our sin is not imputed to us!* Never has been and never will be! Praise the Lord! *I truly believe that God's love, mercy and grace is much bigger than we ever thought possible!* *Nobody's sin today is being imputed to them!* That is amazing news. Praise the Lord! What do you think? Let me know.

Humbert, not "allowed," free will; God "created," free will.

@@sheilasmith7779 ....Free will is not a physical thing that needs creation and then added to our minds, but an abstract conscious decision made on circumstances based on thoughts or events or commands. One thinks on what to do and decides. It's an attribute that's part of our very conscious existence. It's part of our biological being. God didn't create Adam and then, separate from him created a thing called Free Will and then bestowed it in Adam, but the moment Adam received the breath of life and became conscious, he had Free Will.

@@humbertothebeliever2443 When I state God created free will, I am NOT suggesting its some " thing," separate from our humanness. This is a distinction you are making, not me. Obviously Adam and Eve were created with the ability to choose, which they did. Free will, to choose God or reject God.

@@sheilasmith7779 ...I get you. I read you meant God created free will. I just wanted to be clear.

@@humbertothebeliever2443 OK . I just thought it was implied that a God that created humans with the ability to choose ( free will) we could say was a God that created free will. Glad for clarification.

ddmaxlow No Christian believes they can save themselves. That's a straw man argument.

We don't accept Jesus as our Lord and Savior for eternal life - Jesus is Lord and Savior whether we accept Him or not!

Did you know that Revelation was 100% fulfilled? Just not the way we were taught it would be fulfilled. Revelation is exaggerated symbolism and was 100% completed in 70AD. Look at how Revelation is bracketed at the beginning and end with time statements. *Revelation 1:1* The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants *THINGS WHICH MUST SHORTLY COME TO PASS;* and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John: *Revelation 22:6* 6And he said to me, “These words are faithful and true”; and the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, sent His angel to show to His bond-servants *the things which MUST SOON TAKE PLACE.* Now when reading this next verse keep in mind that there was an old testament prophecy where they were told ...to seal it up because it was far off in the future and that one was fulfilled only 400 years later. This one was written 2000 years ago and he was told... Do not seal it up because the time is near... Revelation 22:10 And he said to me, *"Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, FOR THE TIME IS NEAR.* Revelation was 100 % fulfilled! If it wasn't then Revelation was a bunch of false prophecies.

@@SalvationByGrace that's just stupid. 70 AD ? I think not. Not even close. Look at all the many things in revelation that didn't happen yet , and didn't happen in 70 AD. That's just Rediculous....seriously

@@ncjohn3429 You better wakeup, unless you're happy believing lies. It's perfectly clear it already happened.

Hey, thanks for the comment, hope you are doing good. I just wanted to share some things I've been seeing in the word lately. This is amazing truth. Please let me know your thoughts about it... The writer of Hebrews said that Christ died *FOR THE SINS COMMITTED UNDER THE FIRST COVENANT.* We were not under the first Covenant. Hebrews 9:15 ...For Christ died to set *THEM* free from the penalty of the sins *THEY had committed UNDER THAT FIRST COVENANT.* We did not commit sins under that first Covenant. Also...Jesus said... He was *ONLY* sent to the lost sheep of the house of Isreal. That is not us. Matthew 15:24 But He answered and said, *"I was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of the house of Isreal."* It's all about ISRAEL... not us. Also... Paul said... *Jesus was sent TO REDEEM THOSE WHO WERE UNDER THE LAW.* Galatians 4:4-5 4But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, *BORN UNDER THE LAW, 5So that He might REDEEM THOSE WHO WERE UNDER THE LAW...* We were never under the law. Romans 3:19 Now we know that whatever the law says, *IT SAYS TO THOSE WHO ARE UNDER THE LAW...* Psalm 147:19-20 19He declares His word to *JACOB,* His statutes and judgments to *ISRAEL.* 20He has done this for *NO OTHER NATION;* they do not know His judgments Hallelujah! The second Covenant was ONLY for the ones under the first Covenant, those under the law. Did you catch that? The second Covenant was ONLY for the ones under the first Covenant, those under the law. That would be Israel. Only Israel was under the law. Hebrews 8:10 For this is the *COVENANT* that I will make *WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL...* We were never under a Covenant at all. This is fantastic news for us. God's love, mercy and grace is much greater than we ever thought possible. I believe the Parable of the lost sheep is a picture of God's love for ALL people ever created. The house of Isreal represents the one lost sheep. They were the ONLY ONES that needed to be redeemed from the curse of being under the first Covenant law. This next verse proves that only Israel was lost and needing to be saved. Luke 19:10 For the Son of man is come to seek and to save *THAT WHICH WAS LOST.* Apparently not ALL were lost, right? *That's why Jesus said He was ONLY sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.* God agreed to impute Israel's sin to THEM under that Old Covenant. Then He Himself paid the debt THEY incurred under that Covenant. Romans 5:13 For until the law sin was in the world: *BUT SIN IS NOT IMPUTED WHEN THERE IS NO LAW.* Romans 4:8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord *WILL NOT IMPUTE SIN.* *We are blessed because we are not under the law and our sin is not imputed to us!* Never has been and never will be! Praise the Lord! *I truly believe that God's love, mercy and grace is much bigger than we ever thought possible!* *Nobody's sin today is being imputed to them!* That is amazing news! Praise the Lord! What do you think? Let me know.

This sermon is the furthest from Arminian theology. Arminians believe you can lose your Salvation. Yankee preaches eternal security. Reformed Theology takes so much of Scripture out of its original context to make it fit its backwards theology. That is eisegesis and is a horrible disservice to the Bride of Christ.

@@classact9557 Thank you.

The text says they were chosen before they were born. The condition of their heart could not have been a factor. For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son. And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. (Rom 9:9-13, KJV)

Unbelievable how you arminians will completely twist Scripture to suit your doctrinal beliefs. Read Romans 9 again. You have no understanding at all of the sovereignty of our God.

Romans 9:13 says the boys before they were born, before they had done anything good or bad

+Kelly Thompson, technically, the "nations", before they were born, and before they had done anything good or bad... God foretold His relationship with them and what they would do to cause that.

That's the Calvinist version of John 3:16.

Jacob, the word " elect," is a description of the saved, not a prescription of destination.

​@@sheilasmith7779Yes. But were you saved when you believed in Jesus or when you were chosen before the foundation of world? In Calvinism it's when you were chosen, which makes Jesus death on the cross unnecessary.

@tommysuriel I became "chosen," when I believed and repented....not before. The gift of salvation is offered to ALL. BUT that gift has conditions I must accept: Faith and repentance.

@@sheilasmith7779 Amen, I thought you were calvinist based on your previous comment.

+Robert F Volk, which word would you use in its place?

+Marcos Simian draw. Jesus std man cannot come unless he is drawn by the father. arminians Deny this.

+Chad Daniels, that's fine, but two issues arise with that choice of wording. 1. I cannot speak on behalf of Arminians since I am not one, but I am an Anti-Calvinist who acknowledges that God draws "ALL" people to Him.--If you require a reference (among roughly 300 verses), I'll offer John 12:32. So put more simply, the requirement for Salvation to come via God's "drawing" is not in question here, because I, for one, agree with the Bible (as well as the 72-Points of Anti-Calvinism) that God draws everyone. Meaning, the problem becomes, instead, according to Calvinism, in spite of God's desire to save all and perish none, some still end up "Predamned", which means... Against a person's will, someone can go to Heaven (when they want to go to Hell), or someone can go to Hell (when they want to go to Heaven). When a person's desired outcome is the OPPOSITE of what God causes them to experience, "Draw" is no longer a sufficient term for the active denial of a person God likewise "draws". Something else must be in place/effect. "Forced" begins to sound the most sensible given the results. 2. The word "Draw" is also a significantly more subtle term which implies the ability to resist (though not easily). When a person is drawn by the "charms" of the opposite sex, or when a person feels drawn to fight or flight, or more directly, when a person feels drawn to a particular sin...There is literally no other use of the word "Draw" that guarantees results outside of inanimate objects. Meanwhile, "Forced" implies an irresistible entity that you cannot deny and are (lack of better words) forced to comply with. As a result, "Draw" is not sufficient to Calvinistic claims since the desired outcome Calvinists wish to promote is the idea of "Irresistible Grace"... But the only way to achieve this is with terminology that has absolutely no chance of being countered. "Drawing" someone can be countered by another drawing or simply by misfire. Such a term does not aid Calvinistic claims... Because Anti-Calvinists would just as easily agree to the term "Draw" in accordance to its definitional effectiveness, which does not warrant a 100% flawless outcome.--"Force", on the other hand, does imply such a 100% conclusion. Consequently, either find better terminology that "irresistibly" promotes your cause (which would need to be a word that cannot be used by Anti-Calvinism), or simply accept the term "Forced" as the most accurate description of the Calvinistic god's activities regarding Salvation.

You are a Synergist. Just like Roman Catholics, Mormons, JW's and SDA's.

+Chad Daniels , I'll accept your claim for now despite not knowing the full details of what composes a "Synergist", though I sincerely doubt Mormons believe that... However, I have thought of a way in which to help you; would you regard "Call" as being a synonym to "Draw"? That is to say, those whom God "Draws" is the same as those whom He "Calls"?

Yes Chad. And he can't see it.

The Catholic system is actually the one that makes most sense,..we understand that we cannot "avoid" sin ,..in this Free will environment ,..Calvinists think that you "Can" avoid sins ,..and that is impossible,..

Mark Rogers You don't actually believe the doctrine of Calvinism, do you?

Truth. Some vessels created unto honor , some vessels created unto dishonor

+markinelgin, as cutesy as your comment is (which I give you props for), your logic leaves you stuck between a rock and a hard place. I'll provide you Points 11 & 12 of Anti-Calvinism to help you understand what I mean... Point 11: Evil Taking Scripture at its face value, not needing to question the terms “None” and “All” (or else I would likewise have the right to question the word “Elect” in the Bible and give it whatever definition I want), lets gauge the Calvinistic belief structure in more depth. So Calvinism claims that God is the ONLY deciding factor for salvation and that we can do absolutely nothing about it. In short, God Predestines or Predamns all individuals and we otherwise have no choice in that matter. Yet Jesus died so that “None” should perish and that “All” should be saved (according to the Bible). This being the case, and holding Scripture as truth over humanistic claims, if the Calvinist god were the True God, then there is only two possible outcomes = A. God lied and does not desire to save all and have none perish since He predamns some and predestines others despite the Bible’s claims otherwise; or B. God does desire all persons to be saved and none to perish, but is incapable of saving all persons and subsequently unintentionally predamns some and predestines others. Given the Calvinistic faith, option “A” fits the framework of their Belief Structure better, but option “B” is a far less demeaning outlook on God.-At first glance, this may not seem to be the case, but “A” advocates an Evil god, whereas “B” simply advocates an Incompetent god. Additionally, if God did lie about wanting to save all His beloved children, then what else in the Bible did God lie about? If even simply one verse specifically about God in the Bible can be established as false, then the entire Bible as a whole can also be questioned on its validity.-Which becomes the issue of “Inerrancy” once again (or the “Truth” value of Scripture). Consequently, the belief in an Evil god due to the biblical account causes the questioning of God existing whatsoever; especially for non-believers who attempt to follow this line of logic presented by Calvinists. On the flip side, option “B” suggests that God is good and meant every word mentioned in the Bible, but is powerless to fulfill His own “Will”. In other words, it is God’s “Will” that “None” should perish and “All” should be saved, yet God Himself is incapable of enforcing this, causing some persons to coincidentally be predamned, and others to accidentally be predestined. For whatever the reason, a god like that was powerful enough to put life in motion and had every intention of saving every life He created, yet either is hindered by a double/secondary “Will”, or some other power is capable of hindering or even overriding God’s Will. If “B” were the case, probably the most likely cause would be Satan and Sin itself. That is to say, God “was” in full control, but granted some power to His Angels, one of whom decided to use that power against God, and Lucifer therein continues to Predamn some persons while God attempts to Predestine all persons. Point 12: Selfish This is only one potential answer as to why God would be incompetent in His strife to save “All” and allow “None” to perish. Another example of a possible counter “Will” to God’s desire to save “All” and have “None” perish would be if God were a Self-Glorifying entity above being an entity of Love. In short, if the greatest “Nature” to God were His desire to be Glorified, His greatness would go unnoticed without opposition. Therefore, though He desires “All” to be saved and “None” to perish, He desires to be acknowledged and glorified even more than His desire to rescue His own creation. For this reason, He establishes the existence of Evil for the purpose of showcasing His own power over our Sins. Meaning, God wants to save everyone, but cannot because if He did, then His “Goodness” wouldn’t be recognized if we were sinless like our Lord. This would be a sad and very pathetic outlook on God given that it requires Him to be so desperate for attention that He would go out of His way to create us only to intentionally oppose Himself so that He can showcase His Glory, and for no other reason than to Boast about what He can do. Ironically, this would be a god who is the exact opposite of Love, who is Selfish instead. Or, simply a god who loves his own self above all else.-Which then questions why He would put Himself in harms way via Jesus? Between these two options, were it that I was a Calvinist, I would far prefer option “B”, because at least with option “B”, the Bible would still is accurate and God is still “Good”, He simply wouldn’t be “All-Powerful” (and possibly “Selfish”) since either He has Multi-Personality Disorder or accidentally established a different entity entirely (such as Lucifer) to possess some form of power even over God Himself. Yet, given that the entire focus of Calvinism, and why it is believed in the first place, is that God is 100% in control of all things and thereby human Free Will does not exist due to the belief that God is Sovereign above all else, to have a god that cannot fulfill his own intentions would be a contradiction to the Calvinistic idea of Predestination and Predamnation in the first place. Therefore, even though option “B” is a possible outcome to the Calvinistic belief to resolve with simply an Incompetent god, most Calvinists generally far prefer option “A”, and would then go about attempting to justify it in order to change God’s stance from being “Evil” to being “Good” somehow, in spite of lying about “All” and “None” in the Bible. In a simplified sort of way, Option “A”, at best, advocates an Evil and Selfish god, while Option “B” at worst advocates an intellectually Stupid (or Slit-Minded) and Selfish god.-Both options can conclude with a “Selfish” god, and neither of these are ideal outlooks about the God of the Bible, but are the only possible outcomes to Calvinism given the declared standard provided by the Calvinistic 5-Point system. To deny these two outcomes would be the same as to deny God desiring to save “All” and perish “None” in spite of what the Bible says. And if Calvinism truly wishes to maintain its claim of formatting its beliefs based on Scripture, then to deny even one passage of scripture that advocates “All” and “None” would be a direct contradiction to the Calvinistic claim.-Much less the literal hundreds of other verses that advocate the same. Therefore, as a Calvinist, you have no choice (literally) than to accept either Option A or Option B (you do not have the free will to choose another option).-This is not blackmail, this is the utilization of John Calvin’s own logic where your foundational view of God must factually deny God of wanting all people saved in some way or another (as reiterated many times in Points 6-9 of Anti-Calvinism). Whether that be by claiming God lied about loving all people, or by way of claiming God is not powerful enough to save all people. Either way, Calvinism hinges on an excuse that denies God of being able to or wanting to save “ALL” and perish “NONE”. Condensed, the challenge for Calvinists becomes finding an excuse that would enable God’s claim to desire the salvation of “All” and the damning of “None” to somehow not be a lie while still paralleling with the concept of Predestination and Predamnation, and somehow still being Biblically accurate also. To this end, merely denying the definition of the words “All” and “None” are not sufficient excuses. Unfortunately, this type of god simply cannot be justified; because its logic dictates a lack of purpose in doing so. What point is there to convincing people of Calvinism if God is in full control anyway? Wouldn’t that mean God Himself is the reason why “Christians” argue about God in the first place? Does that also mean God promotes conflicting views about Himself intentionally, only so that people would fight over God?

Even in your statement it makes it clear that Calvinism can't be lived out in daily life. We have "all" been indifferent; this is how "we" can make a turn. If you are truly a Calvinist you don't believe everyone can be saved. So tell the truth. God loves some and hates some. The "we" can't make a turn because only the elect can turn. But even that statement is truly false under Calvinism because you don't have a choice at all to turn from or to ANYTHING. All you can do is live out a life decided on before you were born. I said this on another post. Calvinism is intellectually dishonest and spiritually void. Make your mind up. Tell the truth about what you believe or lie to make it more appealing. Which is what the vast majority of Calvinist do.

+4Jesus4Truth, I apologize in advance for having a long response, but your question requires a lot of background information before being able to properly answer it... A common “Christian” debate is the concept of: “When once saved, always saved.”-Anyone who is Calvinist should be well aware of this one. This issue comes up due to verses in the Bible where God says that once He has you in his grasp, He never lets go (another example being when Jesus says that He is the good shepherd who never lets his flock wander far from Him).-Often what people ignore about these verses is that they speak of what God does, not what we do. My answer to this is a pretty simple one, that being, I leave that judgment up to God (more on that later). Regardless whether someone chooses to be “Christian” now, past, or future, my own walk with Christ does not change, and my mission in this life does not change. No matter if interacting with someone who believes in God or doesn’t (and regardless whether they did once believe or not), the Christian mission is to be a Light to this world by featuring a representation of how people should live and constantly point them toward God’s “Truth”, even if they choose to ignore, or even if they are already proclaimed “Christians”.-Even Christians can get “Lost”, proven but the existence of so many doctrines, interpretations, questions, and general issues! So, in short, my answer is that: it is God’s job to judge the state of someone’s soul; it is my job merely to promote God’s “Love” in both other Christians and nonchristians (past, present, or future). While I do not personally concern myself with the judgment of someone’s soul since that is God’s domain, I do minimally have an opinion on the issue nevertheless, and I'll provide my opinion at the end. For now, the first thing to understand is that Love is a choice! As such, it is just as easy to make the opposite choice (aka: Hatred), and there were many persons even throughout the Bible that made wrong turns in life and steered away from God temporarily.-Some of which never returned to God. I am aware of most of the arguments about this issue, the most common of which is the claim that if you turned away from God, then you never truly loved Him in the first place. To some extent, this can be partially true, but I don’t believe it is the entire cause. It is vital for people to understand what “Love” is in order to be capable of loving God, this is the part that is true.-And many times, if someone would choose to deny their once declared Faith, often this results from a misunderstanding of Love. Meaning, if someone declared love of God without knowing what it truly meant to sacrifice your life to Him, then even if they believed they were speaking “Truth”, ultimately their fallacy results from a simple misunderstanding of the word “Love” itself. If you are unable to comprehend Love, then you will be inept at performing it, illustrating it, or even teaching it. Put more simply, a “Christian” who does not understand “Love” is literally incapable of being “Saved”. Because even if they believe they are “Christian”, without the willingness to literally die for God (in the same way He willfully died for you), you cannot truly know Christ and His sacrifice without the intent to make your own sacrifice to Him.--Sacrifice is a common Biblical theme, even as early as the story of Cain and Abel. Consequently, if you are a professed believer in God and Jesus Christ without the willingness to die for Him, you are not “Saved”, nor were you ever “Saved” (regardless of what you believed otherwise). This is where the belief that if someone would later deny God, they were never saved or truly “Christian” to being with, comes from. This is, however, not true in all person’s cases; where some could have legitimately given their heart over to God, but then later felt betrayed by God either because someone successfully convinced you He doesn’t exist, because someone successfully convinced you of the existence of an alternate god (such as the Calvinistic god), or because of some other tragedy/trial you have experienced caused you to doubt God was truly ever on your side. Even the most devout Christians throughout history have occasionally exerted doubt regarding God. In fact, one of the most common theme messages found throughout the New Testament in-particular (especially from Paul) is the constant reminder that we can trust in God and have no reason to doubt.--This would be a pointless message if people didn't have insecurities regarding God. In cases such as these when someone did fully love (at least, so far as they were able to or as far as they knew how to) and engage with God, but then faltered in their faith, the question is: “Are they still saved?” Moreover, let’s suppose these persons who experienced a moment of weakness by doubting, denying, or potentially even flat-out Hating God for a short time either died before returning to good graces with God, or never repented again after that for the rest of their life. My immediate response would be to question their understanding of Love first, and suggesting they were able to answer this part correctly, the understanding of Love itself is also the answer to this question since Love is a choice! Consequently, Hatred is also a choice. Just as you can choose to love God, you can choose to hate God also.-Granted, this necessitates on the idea and belief that Love is a choice and that subsequently Salvation is a choice. Anyone who does not believe this will fail to rectify the existence of persons who convert from saved to unsaved, or vice-versa (hence my objection to the 5th point of Calvinism). And to some extent, I don’t believe God condemns people for misunderstanding Him or failing to have full knowledge of Love, but He could justly condemn people for not trying to understand Him nor attempting to gain additional knowledge of Him.-But instead refuse help after loozing their faith. The reason I don’t believe God condemns people for lack of understanding and knowledge is because He is aware of our fallen circumstances and approaches us individually where we stand. Paul helped us understand this fact in Romans 1:20. The question then becomes, how willing are you to “Learn” what is necessary to both understand and gain that knowledge? Denial of wisdom is also denial of God, because He is the source of all that is ultimately wise. Therefore, to be unwise is not truly the problem, being willfully unwise very much is a problem. There is a difference between being unable to understand something VS not even trying to understand something.-Both result in being unwise, but one is unwise against your will, while the other is unwise in correspondence with your will.

+4Jesus4Truth, Therefore, I believe the problem of: “Once saved, always saved” boils down to the individual’s state of being, and their choice about that state of being. Reworded for a more simplified answer, have you had a momentary loss of faith yet are still looking for answers, or do you assume yourself to already have found the answer and therefore don’t search for any additional knowledge? The category you place yourself in would determine whether you truly seek to Love God or selectively remain unwise. The moment you assume yourself “Right”, especially if that results in a Belief Structure against God, you consequently make Him your enemy; therefore you become unsaved regardless of past salvation or not. It would be silly to claim that an enemy of God’s will nonetheless go to Heaven. This is why among the 5-Points of Calvinism, the final and least controversial point is the Calvinistic belief that once God appoints someone to be Saved, they can never undo their salvation. However, this is also why I do not believe Calvinism can be regarded as having any affiliation with “Christianity”, especially in terms of Salvation. Compared to literally all four of the other 4 Points of Calvinism, this one is the least problematic because it is ultimately irrelevant since this is something we cannot humanly know the answer to. Salvation and/or Damnation is God’s call and His department; it is not our job to assert who is saved and who is not save, our job is merely to spread God’s Word.-Both to fellow Christians (who need constant reminders, or else church itself would not be important) and to nonchristians. In short, the reason why this is the least important issue within Calvinism is because nothing changes based on your position about a person’s Salvation (whether it can be sustained or lost).-Reason being, regardless whether you believe people are always saved or can looze their salvation, our Christian Mission remains exactly the same. This is also why this is usually the least targeted issue about Calvinism.-And frankly, if this were the only belief that constituted a Calvinist, then I would have close to nothing to complain about the general Calvinism Belief Structure myself.-But sadly, that is not the case. Even within Calvinism, this Point about Salvation is the last of the 5-Points, which equally suggests that Calvinists find this issue to be the least important also. Put in yet another way, choosing to believe someone is “Once saved, always saved” will not factually change whether or not someone goes to Heaven or Hell, because that is a personal relationship between each person and God. We literally have no right to say who is or is not Saved other than our own walk of Faith.-Unless you are a Calvinist, in which case you cannot even guarantee you yourself are Saved either. Any belief that does not change the outcome of anything is ultimately an irrelevant belief. I was once asked if I have assurance in my own Salvation, to this my answer is “Yes” without question! The reason being, my comfort comes from knowing I chose to ally myself with God thanks to His gift to enable me the freedom to choose. And He promises that so long as I love Him, He will accept me. The key words you will see repeated throughout the Bible in terms of Salvation is: "By Faith". Nothing more than the choice to place one's faith in Christ is necessary. But if you remain in disbelief that Salvation is not a choice, then allow me to provide the only two options available in regards to this issue of "Once Saved, Always Saved". If Salvation is a Choice, then Damnation would likewise also be a choice.-Meaning, your Salvation would be completely contingent on your choice of Faith in Christ (as the Bible tell us). This is, once again, why I believe Calvinism is against Christ, because even this issue would negate His value. -Reason being, the alternative is: If Salvation is not a choice, then why are you asking this question in the first place? If Salvation is not a choice, then the outcome is unchangeable regardless of what you believe. Meaning, if you choose to believe that God “Predestines” and “Predamns” to the point where nobody is capable of choosing Salvation, then why should you even care whether or not someone can looze that Salvation since they have already been predetermined by God regardless? This issue in its entirety becomes utterly irrelevant if Salvation is not a choice, because that means there is nothing you can do to change you Eternal Status. Thus, to claim that a person who is saved cannot looze their salvation is a pointless claim when asserting that God alone is the reason anyone is saved or damned in the first place. Equally meaning that no matter what you choose to place your faith in, your “Salvation” or “Damnation” goes unchanged. Without choice, there can be no change, nor any fault. Ultimately meaning, your options are: 1. Salvation is a Choice, through which you are saved or damned by your selected Faith for or against God; or 2. Salvation is not a Choice, in which case whether or not someone is “Once Saved, Always Saved” is a futile argument to begin with since nothing changes regardless of your beliefs or anyone else’s beliefs on this matter. To simplify this, you must either claim: A. “Salvation can be Chosen and Unchosen”, or B. “This question and issue in full is completely mute/pointless”. There is literally no other alternative, you are either saved by your “Choice”, or this debate in full is worthless on account of being unable to Choose.-Also meaning, there is factually NO positive outcome for persons who believe Salvation is not a choice, because in doing so, either your opposition wins, or you have no reason to bring up this debate in the first place. -The outcome of this issue, in terms of what you choose to believe, changes absolutely nothing about a person’s spiritual status in the eternal sense. Ironically, this holds true whether you are Calvinist or not. As I stated from the start, I leave the judgment of other people’s eternal existence in God’s hands. I do not bother to worry about anything I cannot personally choose nor alter, and since I can only determine my own Salvation thanks to God's gift of volition (not anybody else’s), I subsequently do not concern myself with who chooses to damn themselves and who chooses to save themselves.-That is their choice to make, and also subsequently their fault to reap when selecting the wrong choice. My job is merely to promote people toward making the right choice; whether they factually make the correct choice or not is their responsibility, not mine. Because regardless of their choice, my Christian Mission remains the same = To showcase God’s Love in every portion of my life, regardless whether in the company of other Christians or in the company of non-christians. And frankly, I’m happy that I don’t have the responsibility of determining other people’s Eternal Status, but I do have a responsibility to teach people about the sacrifice Christ made for “All”! This, in a nutshell, is perhaps the most ironic aspect to this issue in full.-Namely, the fact that when someone questions the state of someone else’s Salvation (other than your own), you are ultimately attempting to place yourself in God’s shoes by assuming the role of judge over their Eternal Sentence. This is a mistake!-And above all, this is why this issue is so pointless. Because for the very fact this is something only God can determine, no matter what your belief on the matter is, it can only (at best) ever be just a Theory/Opinion. If you want my strict opinion, however, I am of the conviction that if our Salvation functions like a relationship, where God even describes the church as His bride, then just as you can file for Divorce from a Marriage (even when you originally believed you loved your spouse), likewise I believe you can Divorce God. However, much like human relations, even after Divorce, a relationship can be mended and then re-married also. Meaning, if marrying God were a choice, then it seems reasonable to say you can Divorce God. Reasoning being, as a reminder of what I stated from the start, the Bible speaks of what God does, not what we do. Meaning, God won't let us go, but that doesn't mean we cannot let God go... At least, not without denying Free Will, which once again makes this topic devoid of purpose. Meaning, if you deny freedom of choice, then you must also accept that "Once Saved, Always Saved" is COMPLETELY irrelevant...

I've heard this preached on. If you got saved at 15 .... Decided at 20 ... I don't want to be. Too bad. You're going to heaven anyway.

With that line of reasoning ALL people that was ever born will be saved.Because Jesus died for ALL men

You calvinists Lol😉 .....He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-all things were created through him and FOR HIM. And HE is before ALL things, and in HIM ALL things hold together. (Kinda sounds like Jesus is the center of this book) not man because man is a vapor a mist and according to this passage a thing. Colossians 1:15‭-‬17

@@krispykr33m2 You're a heretic! That's calvinists favorite passage. But your taking Romans 9, and other passages out of context. That's not talking about personal salvation. The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that *any* should perish but that *all* should come to repentance. 2 Peter 3:9 We are not robots. He didn't create Adam and Eve and make them fall in the Garden of Eden.

+Tom Ceman I'm not sure what you're saying my friend.

+Gregg Gulbrandsen, I'm sorry to hear about your previously deleted post, but I'd like to hear your questions for Anti-Calvinists.--More-so for the curiosity of seeing if you can present me anything I haven't heard before. I'm a 60-Point Anti-Calvinist, and I believe all 60 Points! If you truly believe you have game-winning questions, I'm curious if you can ask anything that the 60-Points of Anti-Calvinism haven't already answered...

+Fred Tusing, Thanks for the definition, given you interest in the this, perhaps you would enjoy Point 27 of Anti-Calvinism... Point 27: Foreknowledge Put in as simple of terms as possible… Relevation 22:17 “Let those who hear, Come. And let those that thirst, Come. And whosoever will, let them take the water of life freely.” Explicitly states: “whosoever will” “take freely”. You see, the problem with the “Interpretation” of “Foreknowledge” in contrast to “Election” is that Calvinists place a great deal of emphasis on verses like John 6:44 “No man can come to me, except through the Father who sent me and draws them to me, and I will raise them up.” Meanwhile, Calvinists ignore verses like John 12:32 “And when I am lifted up from the Earth, I will draw all people to myself.” As usual, the term used is “ALL”. In other words, yes… God is the one who draws us to Him, much as a relationship entails, but God does this for ALL people, yet some still go to Hell. God being behind the notion of bringing attention to Himself does not mean all will accept what they find. Once again showing how “Election” does not guarantee results. If anything, this implies that God elects EVERYONE to be in a relationship with Him, but not everyone elects God to be their Lord and Savior. So to return to answering MacArthur’s question: “By what power do people overcome their sin?” The answer is surprisingly simple… Our God-granted Free Will! Even sin is a choice, lest we not be faulted for it. Absolute Morality is one of the best proofs that God exists. Absolute Morality implies that all people know when they commit an act that opposes God. It is a nature God embedded in all people so as to know how to seek Him, to find Him, and ultimately, to know Him! If you would deny that all people have this ability to distinguish for themselves righteousness from wickedness, then two problems arise. First, Calvinism would be implying that there is no Absolute Morality since a person’s Beliefs and Convictions would be entirely contingent on God, to which everyone is correct because they cannot choose otherwise. In other words, Absolute Morality would not exist because the ability to select righteous would not exist (according to Calvinism). Secondly, the words “Righteousness” and “Wickedness” become unidentifiable by human means. Put more simply, how can you presume to know what is right and what is wrong if there is no Absolute Standard that applies to all people? This would even mean that the very first point of Calvinism (Total Depravity) is worthless since we would not be able to know what is depraved or not.-This would make Atheists happy to hear since most prefer to assume that there is no absolute standard and that Morality is merely relative to each person. Next, MacArthur asks: “If God looked ahead and saw that certain peoples would choose to go to Hell, why did He create them?” He even goes so far as to ask: “Why did God create people who had the Potential to Sin?” The answer is, once again, Love! Love cannot exist without choice, and Love does not force anyone to do anything. God could create people that will only make the choice to love Him, but in doing so, He’d defy His nature of Love in the first place by creating persons who are incapable of not loving Him. If you cannot say “No” to who or what you love, then it is not love at all, it is slavery. This is why people generally do not regard “Arranged Marriages” as “Love”; because if those persons cannot say “No” to the marriage, then saying “Yes” is fairly meaningless. Once again, MacArthur proves the very common Calvinistic fallacy of assuming that Knowledge equates Causation. Put another way, if God didn’t know the outcome, that is to say, if God didn’t know whether people would choose Heaven or Hell, yet He still “Elects” without “Foreknowledge”, is God causing things to happen blindly, or would He, by being the root cause, know the outcome for that fact alone? You see, while MacArthur is going out of his way to even claim that Election would be pointless if God is not “Causing”, the problem is, why would these verses makes such a big deal about God’s foreknowledge if Predestination or Predamnation are strictly caused by God? If God determines even before someone’s birth whether they are to go to Heaven or Hell, then why would God need foreknowledge when He “Elects”? To provide a simplified example, if I created a machine (such as car) for the specific purpose of being able to transport me and/or objects from one location to another, I don’t need foreknowledge to know that machine will someday do exactly that!-Because it was built for that specific purpose… If you require another example, I don’t need “Foreknowledge” to know that I will take out the Trash tomorrow and pick up my Mail. If these are actions I’m going to take, it does not require “foreknowledge” to describe something you cause! So even the simple fact that each one of these verses that mention “Election” also make mention of “Foreknowledge” implies that God isn’t the only cause of a person’s Salvation or Damnation; because knowledge would not be needed at all if you are the initial (and only) cause. It is silly to suggest you need to foreknow what you are going to do anyway. Especially when you claim that what you are doing is “Perfect” to begin with. If Calvinists wish to persist that the word “Election” or “Predestination” in the Bible is of any relevance in contrast to “Foreknowledge”, then you must also explain why God needs to foreknow something He causes to begin with. God does not need to know the outcome of something He causes for the distinct purpose of that outcome. Unless you wish to opt for Option B of Calvinism where God is so inept that even when he creates someone to be Predestined or Predamned, He still needs to look into the future of that person to know whether or not they have remained Predestined or Predamned. However, if God needed foreknowledge to simply ensure that people remain Predestined or Predamned, then wouldn’t that automatically invalidate the 5th Point of Calvinism that claims one’s “Election” status cannot be altered? Therefore, according to Calvinism, if God elects, it cannot be changed, which means He doesn’t need to foreknow. Yet scripture tells us that God foreknows… Why? There is simply no way around this, if God requires foreknowledge to “Elect”, then people need some form of control over their salvation or damnation outside of God’s manipulation, which begins to sound like Free Will… The exact Bibles verse Calvinists rely on most are the ones that disprove Calvinism. And even if this were not so, MacArthur’s question is just as valid under the assumption that Calvinism is true. If God created people for the sole purpose of instilling death, destruction, and overall sin again His “Elect”, then why create the “Unelect” in the first place? Meaning, if God creates a person only for the purpose of going to Hell, then that is no different from MacArthur’s question about creating persons capable of choosing Hell. The only difference being is that when a person goes to Hell by choice, that also means that same person is still capable of repenting and choosing Heaven instead. Meanwhile, according to Calvinism, if God creates someone for the distinct purpose of going to Hell, this outcome would not be changeable, and as a result, that person would literally be doomed upon conception even prior to birth. Meaning, even supposing MacArthur’s question were acceptable logic, it damns his own position more than the opposition to his claim. So allow me to retort with your own question MacArthur, why indeed would God create persons who will go to Hell and are completely incapable of escaping that fate? At least with my claim, those who go to Hell do so willingly, but yours is a claim that God designates Hell as literally the sole purpose for creating that person in the first place. I would say that it shouldn’t require a genius to notice which of these outcomes is worse… but clearly in MacArthur’s case it does. And MacArthur isn’t alone! There are many seemingly brilliant scholars that propose the same concepts with seemingly no concern for their logical conclusions. Amazing how persons that can be such genius in their fields of work can also overlook even the simplest of concepts. A word of advice, when the questions you propose are equally (if not more) damning of your own position as you believe it to be to your opposition, they become very self-defeating questions to inquire. Put more simply, if you cannot account for your own claims, it is foolish to assume that someone else’s lack of accounting for their claims will help your own. This isn’t a genius concept; children use this commonsense reasoning on a near daily basis. Yet this “Commonsense” is lost to persons like MacArthur.

It's help me a lot! Thank you for reply! I will ask God for confirmation about that interpretation, brother. I feel very happy to meet genuine brothers... God bless you! Blesses from Brazil!

well if it's an epidemic of people misrepresenting Calvin, don't you think u should ask a question instead of just saying something like that? Ask me something? Anything. Don't just say that. If that's just how u think, then I'm calling u out on it, God bless.

+Kenneth Soriano, Can God enable Free Will? Note: I'm not asking whether God "will" install it, but simply whether He is capable of granting authority to a small degree?--Or must He retain complete control at all times, completely incapable of relinquishing that control and not in control of His own control?

you need to comprehend deeper home boy, i agree with everthing you just said, except when you got me wrong. I have read Luthers "de servo arbitrium" ( the bondage of the will), our wills are in bondage to sin! so how could our wills be free? Bible agrees with that as well. You doubt that I thought deep enough? I have thought deep enough to read the bible five times and on my sixth, and ive studied at calvin college, and have studied theology for eight years. Now if you think i said that to boast, i didnt. Just know I think plenty deep when it comes to my Lord, but always can improve. Just wanted you to know that I commented on one aspect of that goofy video, and that was that cop out that non reformed belivers always use, That we say, you dont understand calvinism. I would never say that! i would say, you dont understand theology, scripture, or God, and then i would give an answer for my faith. Now since i only commented on that one thing, why did you question my intelegence on whatever it was you pulled out of your rectum? Please excuse typos, im in dark and my son is sleeping next to me. One more thing, come correct if you are gonna try and make yourself look good by making others look bad, thats kids stuff, and it makes you seem like a chump, and i dont think you are, just too quick with your snappy reply... God bless you home boy. Hit me back if you want to have an adult conversation.

+Kenneth Soriano, To answer your questions... 1. "Our wills are in bondage to sin, so how could our wills be free?" Depends, is Sin greater than God?--Because we are in bondage to Him also. Additionally, if you were to answer my question rather than avoiding it, if God can create Free Will, then the answer is self-apparent. 2. "Bible agrees with that as well, you doubt that I thought deep enough?" Firstly, your interpretation of the Bible agrees with a void of freewill, not the Scripture in and of itself that utilizes terminology like: "Free Will", "All", "None", "Entire World", and "Our Will VS God's Will". Thus, what is in disagreement here isn't your Bible VS my Bible, but rather, your "Errant" interpretation of the Bible VS my interpretation/understanding of the Bible. It is a common fallacy to assume that simply because you can distort the Bible's message to agree with anything you want to believe, then automatically ALL other beliefs that oppose yours must not be Scripturally align. That isn't just extremely Arrogant, but that's also outright self-righteous to assume your understanding of God's Word as being, by default, better than anyone else's, and even claiming that the Bible doesn't agree with them when it simply doesn't agree with you. And quite frankly, this is a very faulty argument to rely on... Secondly, given that you didn't answer my question... YES! I do think you haven't thought deep enough about it since you failed to even rely to the direct topic in reference. Instead, you are attempting to beat around the bush... A strategy performed by those who want to "AVOID" the logical implications, rather than tackle your acclaimed convictions head-on. 3. "I have thought deep enough to read the bible five times and on my sixth, and ive studied at calvin college, and have studied theology for eight years." It is unwise to assume that those whom you speak with are unlearned in theologic studies likewise. I'll confess that I specialize more on the Philosophical side than the Theologic, but these two categories have many parallels. Additionally, it is equally unwise to assume that those with opposing beliefs to your own have read the Bible through less times than yourself also. P.S.: Sorry to hear about you school... 4. "Just wanted you to know that I was commenting on the cop out that non reformed belivers always say you dont understand calvinism; I would never say that!" That's great for you... However, do you deny that most, or even just half of Calvinists typically fallback on this remark?--If you need a good example, read through the other posts on this youtube video. I know I can say from personal experience that nearly 90% of all Calvinists I encounter in person opt for the claim: "You simply don't understand Calvinism" in one way or another. It is nice that you don't do so yourself, but simply because you don't apply to a stereotype does not make that stereotype in and of itself false. There are several stereotypes I don't fit into likewise, but the entire reason a stereotype exists in the first place is due to the COMMONALITY of its occurrence. In the case at hand, the "cop-out" you mentioned may not apply to you, but unless you can claim other Calvinists don't do this, then your point here is invalid. 5. "Now since i only commented on that one thing, why did you question my intelegence on whatever it was you pulled out of your rectum?" As much as I truly do like your use of terminology within this statement/question, particularly the rarely used "rectum", you have two flaws with this one. Firstly, clearly you "interpreted" my question as being rhetorical since not only did you never answer it, but also, you assumed my question/comment was in direct reference to your intellect somehow. This is where your second flaw comes into effect, not only did I never even once use even just one word that would present any negative impact on your intellectual value, but also my question(s) wasn't even for the purpose of insulting you in the least... Instead, contrary to your clear misinterpretation, I asked a legitimate question, to which I wanted an honest answer. Meanwhile, you took my question as to be an insult to your intelligence... If that doesn't show you just how far astray your interpretation of the Bible could likewise be if you would skew my own words to such an extent, I don't know what else would. And since you so obviously missed the point to my previous question, I'll literally spell it out for you (since now I am targeting your intelligence as you so clearly have requested me to do so). I asked if God is able to grant Free Will, or is He forced to always be in control and is completely incapable of granting or distributing authority. Reason being... (and I'm answering this since you apparently will not) ...If you say "No", then God is not Perfectly Sovereign, because He lacks control over His own ability to Control. If you lack authority over your own authoritative powers, then you are not truly in complete control. Meaning, someone who is in complete control can also choose not to be in control (such as when He took on the form of Jesus), as well as capable of reclaiming that control at any moment. However, if you say "Yes" instead, then you admit that Free Will is minimally possible, even if not guaranteed. Meaning, your options are to either limit God's authority/power or admit the God can enable Free Will.--Which also answers your question likewise... Where you inquired how can our wills be free; the answer being, if God enables them to be. We cannot be free of our own accord, but we can be free to choose if God enables us to be.--Which is ONLY possible if God is truly Perfectly Sovereign! 6. "Please excuse typos, im in dark and my son is sleeping next to me." Your typos have a better excuse than mine then... I'm simply illiterate, slow, and slightly dyslexic. So the fact you even feel the need to apologize for that makes my own position seem worse. :-P Needless to say, I could read your reply well enough to get the gist of your message... And while I obviously disagree with your blatant assumptions, faulting you for spelling mistakes is literally the last possible thing on my mind. 7. "If you are gonna try and make yourself look good by making others look bad, thats kids stuff, and it makes you seem like a chump, and i dont think you are, just too quick with your snappy reply... Hit me back if you want to have an adult conversation." You tell me where I even once mentioned your intelligence, or which part of my previous comment you believe was intended to make you look bad so that I could somehow look good... Then we'll talk! Until then, you're inserting words into my mouth that are factually NOT THERE! Thus, you are either a schizophrenic (seeing or looking for a fight that doesn't exist in the first place) or you have worse reading comprehensive skills than even me! I wanted to have an adult conversation from the get-go... but clearly my minimalistic questions are simply WAY over your head, so while my initial comment presented absolutely no insult to your intelligence... I literally have no way of rectifying the sheer absurdity of your response without questioning your intelligence. That wasn't my goal, but it became the outcome the moment you superimposed an insult onto my initial post. Next time... My recommendation is that EVEN if you believe someone is insulting you... SIMPLY ANSWER THE QUESTION. You can showcase your cognitive abilities far better by simply beating someone at their own game than to assume the worst of others, which is not what Christ would have done, by the way... If you look throughout the Gospels, even when the Pharisees asked the stupidest of questions, Christ ALWAYS responded. The only time He didn't respond to every question was when He was on trial before being sentenced to the Cross. In fact, a large number of Christ's comments were in response to stupid inquiries by other people, sometimes even by his own disciples. So when you are truly ready to adequately example the questions I presented, I'll return... Otherwise, if you have nothing better to say than to tell me that I should not insult your intelligence, which I didn't originally do anyway, then you are better off not responding at all. Because saying nothing at all is MORE intelligent than the reply you provided...

my apologies

Salvation By Grace True, Something did change when Jesus gave His life as it concerns judgement on earth but again look at what happen to Ananias and Sapphira.

***** Good day, yes, there is consequences for sin. physical "death" can be one of them. Also see the folks who were getting drunk at the Lords Supper at the carnal church in Corinth. Thanks be to God that hell is NOT a consequence for the born again believer.

Thanks Preston for this kind conversation. There's much to learn, much of which we'll not understand until we're changed at His return. I understood what you wrote and it made sense to me as scripture came to mind backing up your opinion. There's no greater gift then reasoning together with other Believers.. Ty Debra

***** Feel free to "reason" anytime; it is my favorite thing to do. :)

+Paul.E Tedder, AND response... Neglect one or the other and a Relationship with God becomes impossible!

+Leoji67, I can play that game too... Romans 5:19, which says: "For by one man's disobedience MANY were made sinners." So does the use of “Many” mean that not all humans became sinners? Consequently, even when the Bible uses terms like "Many" or "Few", it still infers "All" and "None". However, lets suppose your examples were valid, it is still countered by literal hundreds of other verses where the words "All", "None", and "entire World" get used instead. Meaning, the "many" uses of these terms are incorrect for the extremely limited uses of terms that are not completely inclusive or exclusive words; or the limited uses of "Not All" and "Not None" terms are perceived as "All" and "None" for the "many" other uses of those terms. Put more simply... You can either side with an extreme minority, or an extreme majority. In fact, let's do a quick head-count. The words "All", "None", and every related word is featured throughout the Bible roughly 1000 times; among those 1000 times, a little over 300 of those uses refer to "Salvation".--This is not even counting verses that use "World", "Freewill", or "Our will VS God's will"; just explicitly "All", "None", and anything related (such as "Everyone" or "Nobody"). Next, the words "Many", "Few", "Particular", "Some", "Several", "Selective", and every related word is used collectively a little over 300 times; among these barely 30 verses refer specifically to "Salvation". So we are talking about a ratio of roughly 10 Anti-Calvinistic verses to every 1 Calvinistic interpreted verse. The odds are simply not in your favor... P.S.: When the word "Many" was used in reference to Sin in Romans is not the only times it has been used where it implies "All". And even supposing that some of the uses of the word "Many" (such as the verses you gave as an example) were valid, then the Bible is Errant by contradicting is own message. Meaning... Either your interpretation is errant while the Bible is inerrant, or your interpretations is inerrant, while the Bible is errant.--Your choice! Oops, I forgot, you don't believe in choice... My bad. :-P

All dont believe. Many do.

Right. Some just flat out say they don’t believe in God or Jesus. Or even say they choose satan. It’s not just a teasing out of those that say, “Lord, Lord….”

You're funny! Did you get that out of your "Bible Code" book?

Arminianism - Giving man a sovereign free will but denying God His. Kinda seems backwards doesn't it?

***** You proved that the disciples were chosen. Prove that you and I were chosen

contemplate "Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus through the will of God, to the saints that are at Ephesus, and the faithful in Christ Jesus: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ: even as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blemish before Him in love: having foreordained us unto adoption as sons through Jesus Christ unto Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will," Eph 1:1-5 (ASV) Who is Paul writing to? "to the saints that are in Ephesus . . ." How did they become saints? "even as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world . . ." Based upon what? "according to the good pleasure of HIS will."

contemplate "For they that are after the flesh mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For the mind of the flesh is death; but the mind of the Spirit is life and peace because the mind of the flesh is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can it be and they that are in the flesh cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you. But if any man hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." Romans 8:5-9 (ASV) The passage above puts people into two categories: those "after the flesh", who have "the mind of the flesh"; those "in the flesh" and those "after the Spirit"; who have the "mind of the Spirit"; those "in the Spirit" What are some ways that it describes those "in the flesh"? The mind of the flesh "is death"; the mind of the flesh "is emnity against God,"; they "cannot please God" Therefore, prior to the Holy Spirit illuminating us, quickening our hearts, whatever term you choose, while we are in the flesh we are hostile towards God and unable to please Him. I think we both agree that were a person to "choose" to follow Christ, God would most definitely be pleased with that. The problem is, that understanding puts us in contradiction to what Romans 8:5-9 clearly teaches, notably that the carnal, flesh driven man unaided by the Holy Spirit connot please God.

+Kelly Thompson, Curious question for you... Can God resist God? Note, I'm not asking if God "Will" resist Himself, only if He is able to do so?

So can anyone resist the will of God?

+TheBluegoatman , If God enables them to do so, then yes. But ONLY if God permits... This is why I asked my previous question. To simplify what I was saying from before: "Can God enable Freewill?" Once again, I will note that this question does not say: "Will God enable Freewill", nor even "Did God enable Freewill", it is only asking if God is capable of enabling a creation the capacity to respond to God of their own accord without being directed from God?--Or must all actions always definitively come from God 100% with the absolute incapacity to allow anything to act outside of God's own dictation? You see, here is the problem... The Calvinistic interpretation of "Sovereignty" is a notion wherein God must always be in 100% control and is literally INCAPABLE of relinquishing control nor reclaiming it. Unfortunately for Calvinists, this would mean God is not perfectly Sovereign because He lacks control over His own ability/authority to control. Put more simply, when you are in complete control, with complete authority also comes the ability to selectively NOT control also. Someone who is in a perfectly Sovereign position is not "Required" to be in constant demand... In fact, someone in such a position isn't truly required to do anything whatsoever since they can literally create the rules. Consequently, when Calvinists say: "No", that God cannot enable freewill, then you have limited God's power, omniscience, and ultimately, His Sovereignty. A god who cannot even control his own power is not factually in full control. Whereas, when Calvinists say "Yes", they have admitted to minimally the possibility of the existence of Freewill. Put more simply, you only have two options... Either you limit God's Authority or accept Freewill. Moreover, according to Calvinism, you literally do not have any other choice... In fact, you technically (according to Calvinism) do not even possess the capacity to choose between these two options. Meaning, even if you do make a decision (which you likely will not since most Calvinists shy away from the logical implications of their Belief Structure), it wouldn't be yours to make... So lets see which one God believes is more accurate between the two on your behalf? Will God limit Himself, or will God declare Freewill? My vote is on God being powerful enough and sovereign enough to establish a creation with complete volition and freedom; in the same way that God can enable Hell to exist as a realm separate from God. If God can create a place that is devoid of His presence, then it is equally possible that God can create a person devoid of His will. But if your god believes on your behalf that he is not capable of this and is two inferior to my God to be capable of such a "Freewill" feat, then lets hear why... if such a god is even intelligent enough to answer for himself?

+TheBluegoatman , I apologize for the assumptions in my previous post. I had thought your comment was in reference to mine, when it was clearly in reference to Kelly Thompson. I figured this out only from reading other comments you had posted in other threats regarding the same topic. Even so, for Calvinists, my previous post holds true... either God isn't all powerful, or Freewill can exist. If nothing else, perhaps that helped in your battle against this horrid Belief Structure. ;-)

Kelly Thompson Read moe of the bible and less of the teachings of man, and you will reject Calvinism. God bless

Romans 8:33 clearly says that God has chosen and He will justify. Plus, you have being conformed to the image of Jesus is salvation. lol

There also is a verse that says that flesh and blood will not inherit the kingdom. All those sins are committed in the flesh and this flesh will die and will not inherit the kingdom. Like Penelope said that's the reason we must be born again of the Spirit!

Thanks for the comment, hope you are doing good. I just wanted to share some things I've been seeing in the word lately. This is amazing truth. Please let me know your thoughts about it... The writer of Hebrews said that Christ died *FOR THE SINS COMMITTED UNDER THE FIRST COVENANT.* We were not under the first Covenant. Hebrews 9:15 ...For Christ died to set *THEM* free from the penalty of the sins *THEY had committed UNDER THAT FIRST COVENANT.* We did not commit sins under that first Covenant. Also...Jesus said... He was *ONLY* sent to the lost sheep of the house of Isreal. That is not us. Matthew 15:24 But He answered and said, *"I was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of the house of Isreal."* Acts 5:31 He is the one whom God exalted to His right hand as a Prince and a Savior, *TO GRANT REPENTANCE to ISRAEL, and FORGIVENESS of SINS.* It's all about ISRAEL... not us. Also... Paul said... *Jesus was sent TO REDEEM THOSE WHO WERE UNDER THE LAW.* Galatians 4:4-5 4But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, *BORN UNDER THE LAW, 5So that He might REDEEM THOSE WHO WERE UNDER THE LAW...* We were never under the law. Romans 3:19 Now we know that whatever the law says, *IT SAYS TO THOSE WHO ARE UNDER THE LAW...* Psalm 147:19-20 19He declares His word to *JACOB,* His statutes and judgments to *ISRAEL.* 20He has done this for *NO OTHER NATION;* they do not know His judgments Hallelujah! Amos 3:1-2 *1People of ISRAEL,* I rescued you from Egypt. Now listen to my judgment against you. 2 Of all NATIONS on earth, *you are the ONLY ONE I HAVE CHOSEN. THAT'S WHY I will punish YOU because of YOUR sins.* The second Covenant was ONLY for the ones under the first Covenant, those under the law. That would be Israel. Only Israel was under the law. Hebrews 8:10 For this is the *COVENANT* that I will make *WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL...* We were never under a Covenant at all. This is fantastic news for us. God's love, mercy and grace is much greater than we ever thought possible. I believe the Parable of the lost sheep is a picture of God's love for ALL people ever created. The house of Isreal represents the one lost sheep. They were the ONLY ONES that needed to be redeemed from the curse of being under the first Covenant law. Luke 19:10 For the Son of man is come to seek and to save *THAT WHICH WAS LOST.* Apparently not ALL were lost, right? *That's why Jesus said He was ONLY sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.* Amos 3:1-2 *1People of ISRAEL,* I rescued you from Egypt. Now listen to my judgment against you. 2 Of all NATIONS on earth, *you are the ONLY ONE I HAVE CHOSEN. THAT'S WHY I will punish YOU because of YOUR sins.* God agreed to impute Israel's sin to THEM under that Old Covenant. Then He Himself paid the debt THEY incurred under that Covenant. Romans 5:13 For until the law sin was in the world: *BUT SIN IS NOT IMPUTED WHEN THERE IS NO LAW.* Romans 4:8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord *WILL NOT IMPUTE SIN.* *We are blessed because we are not under the law and our sin is not imputed to us!* Never has been and never will be! Praise the Lord! *I truly believe that God's love, mercy and grace is much bigger than we ever thought possible!* *Nobody's sin today is being imputed to them!* That is amazing news. Praise the Lord! What do you think? Let me know.

Salvation By Grace you didn’t answer my question

@@Anteater23 I believe everyone will ultimately be saved. 1 Timothy 4:10 For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, *who IS the Saviour of ALL MEN...* John 12:47 *And if any man hear my words, and BELIEVE NOT, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.* 1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and *not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.* Romans 5:19 For as through the one man's disobedience *THE MANY were made sinners,* even so *through the obedience of the One THE MANY will be made RIGHTEOUS.* Jesus the second Adam reversed the curse of the first Adam. We took no part in being made sinners and we take no part in being made righteous. If we don't believe Jesus reversed the curse of Adam then we are saying that the first Adam was more powerful than God.

Salvation By Grace You believe no one goes to Hell?

@@Anteater23 FACT CHECK HELL PLEASE Do you mean GeHenna, the word Jesus used which literally means the Valley of Hinnom. Jesus warned his generation of the danger there and historians record that hundreds of thousands of bodies after being burned in the city in AD 70 were thrown into that valley where they rotted and were eaten with worms. Do you mean Sheol? That place in the OT that simply meant the place of the dead that had no "hell" meaning? It is usually translated grave. Do you mean Hades? Are you thinking of the Greek god who ruled the underworld, had a hat that made him invisible and a three headed dog that wouldn't let people go from his death-underworld that Jesus was said to have figuratively conquered? Or did you mean Greek mythological Tartarus of the gods the Titans, the word that is used by Peter once and is only used once in the Bible not as a place to send people, but as a mythological place that Peter used as an illustration of physical judgment? Wait, you must be thinking of the Lake of Fire, that place that is mentioned only in the book of Revelation and never anywhere else in the Bible. That book that is filled with apocalyptic, non-literal images to communicate about the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70? Sorry, the mythical place where satan rules and people are tormented for eternity doesn't exist. It really was imposed over the Bible by those who wanted to control the people by fear. I used to think that was silly, but there are documented quotes by early church fathers and others who held the "doctrine of reserve", ie the idea that they needed to reserve the truth otherwise people may live immoral and would endanger the order of society.. Hell isn’t a place. It is what religion puts people through. By Chuck Crisco

Absolutely not!