Is Calvinism Biblical? Douglas Wilson and Steve Gregg Debate, Part 1 of 6 

when will part 3 come out sir?

Great stuff!

@@shannonherring4182 ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-FoklLUR17-U.html

Obviously, you just don't understand Calvinism🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 I love your examples.🎯

Right, Wilson’s analogy works against his point. Clearly, Hamlet has zero freedom; he thinks, says, and does exactly and only what is written into his part. Whether read or enacted, the Hamlet character cannot transcend or edit what the scriptwriter has determined for him. This is the whole point of using a script analogy- AGAINST determinism, as it affirms the absolute lack of freedom of its characters. It is simple irrational nonsense to assert what Wilson asserts (of course, without explaining and attempting to prove the unprovable).

On the contrary.

@ShallStandFor, The world has only 2 kinds of people, the elect and the reprobates.. The entire bible speaks only about these 2 kinds of people.. All that are saved are the elect and all that are not saved are the reprobates... John 3:16 says: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." This verse reveals that there are only two kinds of people, the elect and the reprobates.. Those whosoever believe in Christ are the elect and are saved.. Those who do not believe in Christ are the reprobates and are not saved..

@@reynaldodavid2913Jo Little Johnny, God has predestined the minority of people to be saved and go to heaven forever, and He has predestined the majority of people to be eternally damned and burn in the fires of hell. We have no idea, little Johnny, if God has predestined you to be forever damned or forever saved. We love you, little Johnny, but we accept the fact that God might not love you, and that He may have plans to send you to hell for your future sins. If you do find yourself one day burning in hell because He hasn’t elected to save you, just remember that we will always love you, even if God hates you. Take comfort knowing that we are not like God. We will be in heaven forever only because we were unconditionally chosen for salvation before we were born. That would be the only reason that we won’t be in hell with you if you find yourself there. It won’t be because of anything we did. So also take comfort in knowing that. It may not seem fair, but who are we to judge God? So again, if you find yourself in hell, remember that we will always love you as we forever worship the God who loved us but who hated you, the God who sent His Son to die for us but not for you. Please, we ask, don’t let it bother you-if you find yourself in hell-that we love the God who hated you and showed you no mercy. We must accept the fact that God is sovereign, and He does what He pleases. My dear beloved Calvinist, will you teach that to your children or grandchildren? I suspect that your answer will be “never.” But why not? Why would you ever hide the wonderful “doctrines of grace,” the “Bible truth,” from your own children or grandchildren?

@solideomusical What you are describing is a modified view, not a full deterministic (late Augustinian/Calvinist) view of God’s sovereign ordaining of all things. Notice Wilson is emphasizing and requiring “all things, the macro and the micro.” So, you would be lining up here with Steve against that full deterministic view.

@@oneday6589 Whose repentance are you praying for?

Satan is the God of this world.....bad things happen because of the world the flesh and the Devil.

@@JacobSerwinski-fx3on the reformed fallback seems to always be 'but God (capital 'g') ordained it. He 'ordained' Satan's activity and our fleshly desires too, I guess, which seems like a bad thing to say.

Sadly, that is exactly what reformers teach and believe but they know most find this view abhorrent. So they infiltrate weak churches and begin their indoctrination. This can take years, but they do it, I know, ..I attended one and left once the majority no longer cared about solid doctrine. They gave their critical mind and discernment to a man, a Calvinist who now rules! May God have mercy on these false teachers who will stand before God and tell Him they didn't believe His Son's sacrifice was not sufficient to make way for the WHOLE WORLD TO BE SAVED!!!

thenarrowpath com has it listed as 2001 - moderator

@3:00 DW refers to the 9-11 events as RECENT. SO, it's from around 2001/2002

This is from like 2005

Not 2005--OLDER! Listen to the VERY FIRST minutes. Right about 3:00: DW refers to the 9-11 events as being VERY RECENT. Nearly 23 years ago (as of 6.2024).

Maybe he won the debate, but Calvinism is still true and biblical.

​@@markusw.2690I disagree. Because I'm not a robot or a program. He made me and it was his good pleasure to grant me freedom of the will. In fact it is libertarian free will that we are made in his image. His knowledge of my actions are not causal. They are permissive. Dr. William Lane Craig offers in depth analysis of this. Steve Gregg is 100% Correct. Mr. Wilson is not. Unfortunately Mr. Wilson has taken a wrong turn on Eschatology as well. I give Pastor Doug Wilson a grade of the letter F for fail. Sorry

Calvinism is biblical, mormonism is not.

@@markusw.2690 😂

​@@steveobrien3673😂

Nah

@ForrestS, The world has only 2 kinds of people, the elect and the reprobates.. The entire bible speaks only about these 2 kinds of people.. All that are saved are the elect and all that are not saved are the reprobates... John 3:16 says: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." This verse reveals that there are only two kinds of people, the elect and the reprobates.. Those whosoever believe in Christ are the elect and are saved.. Those who do not believe in Christ are the reprobates and are not saved..

@@reynaldodavid2913Jo I'm not sure I understand the point you are attempting to make...

@@ForrestS , As I said, there are only 2(two) kinds of people in the world, the elect and the reprobates or the Wheat and the Tares as revealed by Jesus in the parable of Wheat and Tares.. The Wheat(elect) are the seeds of God literally and the Tares(reprobates) are the seeds of the devil literally.. So when the bible speaks about persons it's either they are elect or reprobates.. For example Jacob and Esau, Jacob is the elect and Esau is the reprobates.. Before a person is born, he is either elect or reprobate, the same also about Issac and Ishmael.. When God speak of a single person, he is either elect or reprobates, there is no neutral.. For example when God speaks about Abraham, God speaks about the elect.. When God speaks about the pharaoh, He speaks about the reprobates, Every person is either elect or reprobstes before they are born, because since they exists as seed, they are either the seed of God or the seed of the devil literally.. Example of the seed of the devil can be found in Johh 8:44 Example of the seed of God can be found in Romans 8:14 and Psalm 82:6

@@reynaldodavid2913Jo, maybe it's me, but I'm still not understanding the point of your comments. Are you just making declarations? I don't see how this is a discussion...

@@reynaldodavid2913Jo - are you just declaring that you're a Calvinist? That's the best that I can deduce here...

Se le estrello en el pecho, se le estrello en la cara y de fieras cuchilladas al Calvinismo mato!

Nah

It does need a qualifier if two people want to use the term but each uses it differently. Doug is being clear what he's arguing for, which I appreciate more than Calvinists who just claim to be promoting sovereignty as though their conception were the only one on the table.

@@joshuadonahue5871 The word has a definition, and It really does not apply in the way Calvinist try to use it. Calvinists employ 'Sovereignty' simply because it has a rhetorical weight they think adds an air of 'holy gravitas' to their argument. For those who see through the fog it doesn't. By definition a 'sovereign' can do as they please within the area over which they are sovereign, and to the extent of their power. BUT... they are NEVER required to control anything simply because they could if they wanted. they don't have to 'control' anything at all. Calvinists mistakenly make God a slave to his own power. They assume he uses perhaps as they might if only they had it. God is free to do anything he chooses ... but he's not obligated to do anything except honor his word and keep his promises. And he can be trusted to do that. Calvinists simply need to pick another word, even it doesn't sound as impressive. Meticulous determination of all things at all times is what they mean, but saying "sovereign" sounds 'cooler' to them so they invent a different, private, definition. It becomes a verbal sleight of hand to those who aren't paying attention. Exmpl; Is it more correct to say that egg yolks "are" white or is it OK to say egg yolks "is" white? Calvinist arguments can go something like this, it's sort of like a fighter setting up a right hook with a left jab and a head fake. Calvinist: "You believe God is sovereign, right?"(their definition of sovereignty excluded)... Victim: "Right!" Calvinist: "You believe man is totally depraved, right?"(their definition of depravity excluded)... Victim: Right! Calvinist: "You know man can't save himself, right?"(begging the question of how salvation occurs)... Victim: Right! Calvinist: "Why did you get saved and your friend didn't?"... Victim: "I believed the Gospel and accepted the gift of salvation, and he didn't." Calvinist: "Oh, so you saved yourself, aren't you special. So, you must think you're better than him. ....I thought we already covered that".. etc. etc. It goes on ad nauseam. The unsuspecting, unprepared victim really has no chance. And the next thing you know John "Bob" Calvin's your uncle....... But yolks are still yellow, not white.😊

@@R.L.KRANESCHRADTT You're preaching to the choir. You complain that Calvinists assume a hidden meaning to the term but also complain that Doug qualified his use of the term. I was merely saying that the latter was preferable to the former. You would seem to agree

​@@joshuadonahue5871 I don't say they have a 'hidden meaning' They are simply misusing the word entirely in reference to God. Perhaps we're talking past one another. In my experience, when Calvinists use the term sovereign applied to God, they know everyone will agree God is sovereign. However, they press forward with the idea his sovereignty requires God must control all things at all times. And, they further try to say that IF God does not control all things at all times... he is NOT sovereign. But this is not true meaning of the word. People fall for it because the do not catch the 'switch' in the Calvinists position. Most Calvinists fell for it when they heard it from another Calvinist and repeat what convinced them to others (rinse and repeat) I'm not saying they are intentionally trying to deceive, any more than they have been deceived. I don't question their sincerity, or their salvation. They do not know they are using an incorrect definition of 'sovereignty'. It sounds convincing and pious so they say it with authority... in ignorance. They will will contend that if any of God's creation had the ability to make moral choices on his own and he chooses to rebel as did Cain, and even Lucifer before him, God cannot be sovereign. They often use unnecessary adjectives such as Doug's use of "Exhaustive" added to try and describe sovereignty and their 'special' their use of the word, as if it changed definition of the word. It does not. It is without question that God is the sovereign, and his power is unlimited. But that just does NOT mean what they claim it does. It describes the authority one has, but does not define how it must be used. That is their error. No, whether wittingly or unwittingly they use the term incorrectly and should abandon it for their arguments. But they will never surrender the implied piety or 'high ground' they believe it adds to their arguments. If you do not buy into their definition .. they attack by saying you do not believe God is sovereign and brand you a heretic. It's nonsense. It's the same technique as when anyone rejects the implications of Calvinism they say "who are you to question God?".... BUT, it's not God in question... it is Calvinism which is in question. Their reply is designed to shut down their opponent. If the conversation continues it will inevitably become "you just don't understand Calvinism". I just had a Calvinist accuse me of not believing Romans 9. I believe Romans 9 just fine. I simply reject Calvinism's interpretation of romans 9. His argument is that he has 'special' insight granted to him by God which I do not have (Gnosticism) And his only argument is my disagreement proves I'm unenlightened and he is therefore 'right'. Calvinists are not monolithic, but they are very consistent in their inability to accept anyone ever rejects Calvinism because the DO understand it.🤷🏻‍♂

'Meticulous Determination' is an interesting way of putting it. Sproul used to say "there are no rogue molecules."

@@solideomusical Yes, that phrase was one of his claims to fame. Sproul had his own personal issues with the implications of his doctrine of choice. An Interesting but very sad story; In June of 2001, during his message at a Ligonier’s Conference in Orlando, Fla., the late Dr. R. C. Sproul indicated that Dr. James Boice, a scheduled speaker at the conference, was dying that very night. Then at the end of the message he asked all 5,000 present to pray that Jim "dies in faith". Dr. Boyce was considered a great pastor, theologian, teacher, and author, yet Sproul was not sure that he was regenerate. Dr. Boyce did die that night. They all hoped he persevered ... but they cannot know if that was God's "gift" to him or not. The real irony lies in their 'prayer' that Dr. Boyce would truly be saved. According to "U"conditional Election... God either loved him 'salvifically' or he hated him. just like Calvinist's claim regarding Esau, and literally nothing could ever be done to change his eternal decree from before the foundation of the world. And, if God hated him, why would they run the risk of 'loving' him?... They just don't know, and believe they cannot know, but most won't admit it, even to themselves. It is said that Dr. Sproul even wondered out loud near is own death if he had done 'enough'. Calvinists can have no real personal assurance, they're only hoping for the best, because they believe they're either 'picked' or they'll bust Hell wide open without a prayer.... literally. Desperate for 'evidence' of salvation, they cling to their 'works' as pieces of a broken shipwreck at sea, it's all they have. But their "evidence" can be no less God's decree than the faith already in question. No one is guaranteed the "Gift of Perseverance" and no one can ever know if the have it... or will get it... before they die. Evanescent Grace hangs over their heads like the Sword of Damocles. Any claim of personal assurance is simply whistling past the grave yard.

@@R.L.KRANESCHRADTT I am a long time 'Calvinist' but what you describe about a lack of assurance is completely foreign to me. We just happen to be studying the person of Calvin in our bible study and he was a loving, committed pastor whose chief desire was for his flock to have assurance! Sproul's comment about 'doing enough' seems like what any zealous believer would wonder a la 'Do I pray/study God's word/evangelize/give enough'? I would not construe that to suggest that his 'salvific works' were lacking.

@@solideomusical I would think we both can agree there are NO "salvific works". No offense, most Calvinists are just not thinking through the unavoidable implications of this doctrine. I do not doubt your sincerity or the salvation of anyone professing faith in Christ. But, the doctrine of Calvinism affords no personal assurance of one's own salvation. The question "how can I know I'm 'elect'?" Is the single most often asked in the Q&A at all the conferences according to John MacArthur. All the leaders have a response... but no answer. They tell people to examine their lives and Christian activity and desires "works"... for some "evidence" but these are not "evidence" of salvation. No one is guaranteed the "Gift of Perseverance" which Calvinism says is required to spend eternity in Heaven. That list has already by written and is unchangeable, if Calvinism is true. But no one can know for certain they are on it. If I believed this... I wouldn't talk or think about it much either. There's nothing that can be done to change it. Here's what Calvin wrote; “Experience shows that the reprobate are sometimes affected in a way so similar to the elect that even in their own judgment there is no difference between them. Hence, it is not strange, that by the Apostle a taste of heavenly gifts, and by Christ himself a temporary faith is ascribed to them. Not that they truly perceive the power of spiritual grace and the sure light of faith; but the Lord, the better to convict them, and leave them without excuse, instills into their minds such a sense of goodness as can be felt without the Spirit of adoption .... there is a great resemblance and affinity between the elect of God and those who are impressed for a time with a fading faith .... Still it is correctly said, that the reprobate believe God to be propitious to them, inasmuch as they accept the gift of reconciliation, though confusedly and without due discernment; not that they are partakers of the same faith or regeneration with the children of God; but because, under a covering of hypocrisy they seem to have a principle of faith in common with them. Nor do I even deny that God illumines their mind to this extent .... there is nothing inconsistent in this with the fact of his enlightening some with a present sense of grace, which afterwards proves evanescent.” (3.2.11, Institutes) And; “Yet sometimes he also causes those whom he illumines only for a time to partake of it; then he justly forsakes them on account of their ungratefulness and strikes them with even greater blindness.” (Institutes of Christian Religion, 3.24.8) Calvin also continues; “We cannot imagine any certainty that is not tinged with doubt, or any assurance that is not assailed by some anxiety. . . . Believers are in perpetual conflict with their own unbelief” (Calvin, Institutes, 3.2.18). **Now... if this is true... and within the parameters of Calvinism is must be... Calvinists are worshiping a God who cannot be trusted to love any one particular individual. They 'know' he loves some... they just don't know "who". The claim is all men are "born" unable to believe and no man can, or ever would, profess faith in Christ apart from God's "effectual" work. And this is against his own will and having nothing to do with him because, as they say, their profession is "ALL God". However, the same must also be true of apostasy. It is also God's effectual work. If he does this to some people .. who's next? It's impossible to know.

@@R.L.KRANESCHRADTT I attended MacArthur's church for a long time and assurance of salvation was never an issue for me or anyone I knew there. Maybe the Q&A's were done elsewhere with people not well grounded in Calvinism. I repeat, Calvin's whole pastoral mission was to afford his congregants assurance. It seems like the word 'elect' trips people up so how does a non-Calvinist have assurance of salvation and, assuming they do, what is it based on?

So God sovereignly determines that babies will be murdered in the womb and little girls get raped? That's what you think Proverbs is saying? That God damns babies to eternal hell, and there's nothing the baby can do about it?

All due respect, those verses don't prove Calvinism.

@@ShallStandForEverThats true, it proves God is sovereign over all things

@@ShallStandForEver I dont defend in or believe in Jon Calvin, or any ism. Ive never read calvins works nor do I need to.

@@devastatoraudio Calvinism distorts the sovereignty of God. Calvinism distorts the salvation of God and limits the reach of the Gospel. The God of the Holy Scriptures _is_ sovereign, but He also seeks lost souls to turn to Him in humility and faith.

No disrespect to you, but that phrase proves that reformers are 'cognitively dissonant'.

Determinism is like fatalism, neither are the same as a personal God who purposely working all things and through all things and preordaining all things according to the council of his will for his glory and our good.

@@eugenejoseph7076 None taken. Of course, the Augustinian wing of reformation would claim no dissonance. But, there is plenty there. Full disclosure: I am pro-reformation and its grounding. The legalism that emerged, ironically, replaced the privilege and pageantry they wanted to remove. So much grounded in classical theology and neo-platonism. God's love seems to be an afterthought.

@@Zaloomination If God's power, wisdom and love are outside of our scope, even categorically so, why must His actions be meticulously deterministic? It doesn't necessarily follow. God can pre-ordain and even foresee His victory without being the forceful mover of all involved. On a much smaller scale: If my chess mastery is such that I can, at any given point of the game, know what my opponent is going to do, then predicting the outcome and even its particulars doesn't seem so far-fetched...all without interfering with the players' freely chosen moves.

@@pikehightower790 You know that Calvinism asserts the freedom of man to make choices, and the sovereignty of God over all that happens. "..according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the council of his will." Ephesians 1:11 is one such place of many where this is explicit. You're right about God's attributes, and they don't preclude him from working things out as he has chosen. His plan and sovereignty is how he has chosen to glorify himself.

That's brilliant and true

Consider using capital pronouns (He) when referring to the Lord. There is a rich history of it and it helps avoid ambiguity rregardinf which 'he' your statement refers to.

That doesn't really make sense though. And I love Steve Gregg, as well as Doug Wilson. I just don't know what he means by that statement as it sounds contradictory.

On what basis does the unregenerate man choose? On what basis does the regenerate man choose?

@@markledyard May I know what the utility of that question is?

You're a gnostic heretic. Repent.

👍🏽

👏 yes and AMEN

God determines all things, that is sovereignty.

@@mjoohl154 According to Calvinism, yes. Not according to the dictionary and the rest of Christian theology. Calvinism frequently creates new definitions to words that have already been clearly defined predating Calvinism.

Nah

Calvinism is just a bunch of MAN made theological/garbage. Amf one confusing mess. G...i wonder who the author of confusion is.....👹

Nah

Of course Calvinism is biblical.

Nah

Calvinism's "root" is the bible. The root of Arminianism is human pride.

My thoughts exactly... pitiful 😢

As much as I like Doug Wilson, up to this point, it isn't the best defense of Calvinism. There are two books that lay out the best case of the doctrine of predestination/election that were ever written in the modern times. First is "The Sovereignty of God" by A.W. Pink and the second is "The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination by Lorraine Boettner" (a man). If anyone can read those two books and still be an Arminian, then they will never be convinced. Both books are Scripture saturated and very rich in Biblical theology. They can be found free online. Even if one isn't convinced of the doctrines, it certainly would help you better articulate why you think Calvinism is unscriptural. God is completely sovereign and man isn't. Isaiah 14:24 "The Lord of hosts hath sworn, saying, surely as I have thought, so shall it come to pass; and as I have purposed, so shall it stand". Daniel 4:35 "And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?"

Calvinism.....just a bunch of MAN made theological/philosophical GARBAGE.

​@@SavedByTheBloodOfChrist551 The only other option isn't Arminianism. Provisionism/Traditional Baptist would be the 3rd position within Protestantism that rejects Calvinism, and has a different exegetical approach than Arminianism. Arminianism is better stated as diet-Calvinism. They both operate out of a similar framework of total inability to respond to the gospel from birth, Arminianism has prevenient grace to fix the problem, Calvinism has irresistible grace. Look into the Early Church, the first 1000 years of the Church, determinism/compatibilism, Augustinian/Calvinistic forms of original sin, election, predestination, were not the common and accepted views within the Early Church, and Eastern Orthodoxy the 2nd largest sect of Christianity condemned Calvinism explicitly in 1672.

@@Orthocurious It wasn't laid out systematically until Augustine, and later John Calvin did a lot more to do so. But it was taught by some of the early church fathers. Provisionism is that nonsense that Leighton Flowers invented, or at least gave a label to. But no one should give him the least bit of credence because he halts between two opinions - Weslyeyan Arminianism and Biblical Calvinism. As for Eastern Orthodoxy condeming it, which I assume is what you hold to, in my opinon irrelevant. But mainly, I believe it and will stick it because it is what the Word of God teaches and what He has shown me.

Nah again

Wrong. Faith is a gift. There are Scripture references that tells you faith is given.

Faith is a gift. For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake, (Philippians 1:29, ESV)

@@abuelb The "gospel of Christ" is the subject of the passage, in the same way "grace" is the subject of Eph. 2:8. Php 1:27 Only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ: that whether I come and see you, or else be absent, I may hear of your affairs, that ye stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel; Php 1:28 And in nothing terrified by your adversaries: which is to them an evident token of perdition, but to you of salvation, and that of God. Php 1:29 For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake;

You clearly don't understand the biblical concept of predestination. Calvinism does.

Nah

I don't think Piper holds to any historic Reformed confessions so I think it is a bit too much to hold Doug to anything Piper might personally think. Doug holds to the Westminster Confession which says that God establishes human freedom and the liberty and contingency of second causes by what he ordains. So there is room to say God doesn't have to micromanage every last detail and leave it up to contingency while affirming that it is still ordained by God to act contingently.

Nah

@@user-bc4sg7cn9n Yes indeed

@@user-bc4sg7cn9n Yes indeed👍

Nah

@@user-bc4sg7cn9n Prove it

Have you read Calvin’s commentary? I’m unashamedly an Arminian in the soteriology understanding and ran into a few things of Calvin and have read Arminius himself write that he’ll sign his approval on Calvin’s work other than Calvin’s understanding of predestination.

@@thebark_barx6231 You just have to read directly the letters of Shaul to know what he meant AND to whom he was refering when speaking about the concept of predestination AND It Is not what Calvin said at all.

You know nothing of church history

@@IsmaelZaldivar-yq2fu so have you read Calvin’s work on anything?

@@thebark_barx6231 yes. Read the Bible

Wrong answer.

@@markusw.2690 nope you are wrong.

@@johnny_favorite Calvinism roots in a true biblical understanding of God. Arminianism roots in - human pride. Arminians think they are better then others, because they CHOOSE to believe in Christ. But Christ says: "You did not choose me, but I chose you."

Nice useless opinion.😂