Justification, Calvinism, and More with Guillaume Bignon 

It’s pretty cool to see an actual French Calvinist

Wonderful conversation! I feel the need to voice my presence as a viewer who is, in fact, a Calvinist, simply because there seem to be so many saying that they aren't. Your Calvinist viewers are here as well, Gavin!

5 kid gang represent. I'm with you guys

Dear Dr. Ortlund, I have been extremely blessed by your debates, discussions and teachings. As an ex Catholic who has come to faith in Jesus Christ, it is so enriching to learn a spectrum of dogmas and contradicting doctrines between Protestantism and Roman Catholism...based on the Bible. This discussion with Dr Bignon...is so inspiring as I have literally understood the difference in understanding justification and the process of sanctification again between the protestant and catholic faith. A huge thank you Dr. Orthlund for arranging this discussion and I am utterly grateful to Dr. Bignon for making this topic so understandable. God bless...

This P- C- defining of justification and faith is extremely helpful for P and C discussions. Thank you.

Just finished Guillaume's book, thrilled to see him have a convo with one of my fav scholars on youtube! His book was amazing. God bless you both

I would love to see Gavin engage with Leighton Flowers' material on Calvinism.

That discussion of justification by faith was very helpful! I think an important take away from the p-faith, c-faith, p-justification, c-justification rubric is that in order engage with the Protestant claim (either to affirm or deny it) we have to use the Protestant definitions. If we're not using both terms in the Protestant sense then we're not addressing the actual point of disagreement.

I think I watched a lovely video with David Wood where Guillame shared his testimony. It is very good to hear him again, this time with a bit of philosophical theology

Extremely helpful, and as usual, clearly laid out. I think that is one of the distinguishing factors of this channel- clarity.

Gavin this May be your best interview thus far. !

Great interview, great guest! I particularly enjoyed the discussion on justification by faith alone. All these topics overlap with what I'm interested in. I might get his books to read up more.

Great interview! I ordered the book.

My husband has a similar testimony. He grew up in the Catholic church and he was an atheist most of his life because of it. I wasn't raised in any church at all. We started reading the Bible together in 2019 after being married and having four kids and we both came to faith in Christ! 🙏

From a Catholic perspective this was very interesting to see a personal perspective on these differences. This highlights why it is worth taking care when trying to convert people between traditions when it may threaten the foundation of what drew them to Christ in the first place. It makes me think of that pickup artist who became Orthodox. Catholics immediately started trying to convert him right after he converted and it's like, "Give the guy five minutes away from his sin before you start trying to convert him." The truth is important but I wouldn't want to stand before the Lord explaining why I possibly helped stumble a brother because I thought it would be flattering if he agreed with me most of the time. Great video, though, would watch more like this.

This is so refreshing! P-justification, C-justification, P-faith, and C-faith... that's a great way to clarify the biggest culprit of this 500-year separation.

Fantastic interview/discussion

Starting to watch now but I already rate this as a 10/10 video!

That was a good interview.

Nice use of a matrix to tackle the justification problem! Whether that’s a philosophy trick or a software engineering trick, either way it’s awesome.

Awesome conversation!

Thank you for that great discussion. I like how Guillaume distinguished p and c justification. The Catholic church sees justification as a process conferred through the sacraments, whereas Protestants see it as immediate when you repent and believe in Jesus, who He is and what He did, then sanctification follows.

Looking forward to his new book :-)

Relatively new subcriber to this channel, in fact I came across Gavin due to the Capturing Christianity channel. Guillaume presents the Catholic/Protestant divide consistent from what I've read and heard from those theologians that have dove into the topic. There are a few Catholics that have object to that presentation in the comments, and I myself have noticed that the terminology being used in recent years have been strikingly simiar to protestants, to a point where it blurs the distinction between the two. Likewise I was surprised to hear that Gavin is a Calvinist. My engagement with Calvinists have not been pleasant in most quarters and this is probably the best representation that I've heard that doesn't included being labelled a heretic for holding to the Arminian view. That said, this also led to take a look into the Molinist view, and although I recognize the shortfalls of both the Calvinist and Arminian views in the areas of free will and providence respectively. I don't think that it requires a leap to Molinism to address that. The more I think about it, Calvinism is the default position of the church. And the others are well intentioned and well thought out resposnse to rationalize the conflict between providence and free will in that model. Having identified as an Arminian for a few years, but also realizing that i've started out as a Calvinist. It occured to me that I don't really identify staunchly in either position and somewhere in between the two.

Excellent!

Excellent interview! Having done a lot of research on Catholicism I totally understand the issue of equivocation when it comes to terminology. But I never applied it to the conversation between the Calvinist and Arminian perspectives (I’ve been Arminian my entire life). I have to admit that I just jumped to conclusions and reacted to what I thought I was hearing in the Calvinist perspective. I also have to admit that I’ve never listened to a Calvinist as much as I have listened to you in your videos! It’s not that I haven’t regarded or respected Calvinists as my brothers and sisters in Christ but I just couldn’t understand how anyone could actually subscribe to Calvinist theology. But your irenic approach and spirit that is so evident and manifested in every topic you discuss has really opened me up to listen and appreciate instead of react to what I assume I’ve heard. I’m a tongue-speaking, heel-stomping Pentecostal but if I’m ever in your neighborhood I would definitely love to visit your church!

Great guest and interesting interview. Very intelligent and useful discussion of the terms justification and sanctification. And yes there are still differences that matter and need to be resolved. Thought his discussion of Calvinism was also thoughtful. One small correction - he needn't think it is clear he would be damned under Catholic soteriology because he believes he may have mortally sinned since his baptism and as a Protestant does not have access to the sacrament of confession. In Catholic teaching, we are bound by the Sacraments but God is not bound by the Sacraments. They are the "ordinary" means of salvation but there is also the extraordinary means of Salvation. If he has repented out of love of God rather than mere fear of hell, then it is very likely he is in a state of grace (there are other conditions - he can't culpably "know" the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation- formerly known as invincible ignorance- and he must cooperate with such graces as God gives him through his Protestant faith. Only God can judge these two conditions). Through the extraordinary means of Grace he can be in a mysterious way be imperfectly joined to the Church outside formal membership. Of course, those outside formal membership are in "objectively" greater danger - perhaps grave danger. He would be better off in the Church and this is what the Church (and I ) would preach to him (and to all mankind). But of course salvation has a subjective dimension and he may be in less danger than a purely nominal Catholic - say a Catholic who mortally sinned (meeting all conditions for culpability) and is not repentant at all even apart from going to confession. That would be a clear case. In summary, the Church’s business and mission is to proclaim Jesus Christ and to offer and encourage the "ordinary" means of salvation. And for good measure, formal membership in the Church is not a guarantee of salvation - one can belong formally but live completely outside a state of grace. And the Church has taught in Lumen Gentium that those who have access to the graces made available through formal membership in the Church have a greater responsibility and will be judged accordingly. All of this is explained in greater detail in the wonderful document "Dominus Iesus" which Cardinal Ratzinger had a strong hand in and was issued under his leadership in the CDF (and adopted into the Ordinary Magisterium by JPII)

Hello, I would be very interested in Gavin and Guillaume's view of the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification between the Catholic Church and some of the Lutheran churches made around the year 2000. Does the Joint Declaration change anything when it comes to Protestant and Catholic views. L. Joe Gaietto El Mirage, AZ

Great interview. Good Catholic/Protestant clarification on essential terms. Calvinism. That some persons who are created are predestined to eternal damnation even before their conception. They have no possibility of being saved because God wills it. I'd love to see this explained. Sincerely cannot understand this.

Just as an additional note (both men in the video are aware of this, I’m not adding anything new 😂) but in 1 Timothy 2 there’s some important context to consider. The passage states that: “First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.” ‭‭1 Timothy‬ ‭2:1-6‬ ‭ESV‬‬ Notice it says we should pray “for kings and all who are in high positions.” It’s very reasonable to conclude that this passage simply means that God desires the salvation of people from all different classes, there is no distinction whether rich or poor. However, this exact meaning cannot be applied to every individual. The passage is neither here nor there in that regard.

That p-faith, c-faith, p-justificatio etc stuff - I never thought of it like that but was fun, and food for thought

Reformed Theologian Charles Hodge of Princeton said that 2 Corinthians 5.21 is the clearest and most important text for the Protestant understanding of Justification because it clearly teaches Imputation. But when I looked up this verse in the ESV and NASB they cross reference 5.21 to Romans 8.3, which says "God sent His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh". I looked this up more and found the Early Church Fathers explain "made sin" in 5.21 as the Incarnation (not Imputation) and they also cite Romans 8.3 as a parallel explanation text. Even John Calvin in Institutes 3.11.9 cites 5.21 as about the Incarnation. So if 2 Cor 5.21 is the strongest and most important text for Imputation, then this is a major problem.

To chime in to a mostly helpful dialogue and wonderful testimony that I listened to and benefited from, traditional catholic and traditional protestant doctrine and belief differ especially in what we understand about faith alone by grace alone (p) and entrance in the state of grace (c) by way of what the relationship between sacraments and salvation is. In fact, the traditional catholic belief that the state of grace is attainable assumes the sacraments as a basis of their own for a works righteousness. Some of what was said might make it seem like the relationship between works and the sacraments in the catholic system of belief and doctrine are arbitrarily related when traditional roman catholicism seeks to define itself upon the insistence that the sacraments are the primary work that causes salvation. To understand this difference only nominal only and so semantically belittles how protestant doctrine is not ultimately a doctrine against something but for something namely Evangelical belief, and in a character that is omitted by the sacerdotal imposition of the traditional catholic tradition. I am not primarily concerned about what Bignon is asserting, rather I am concerned about what he is possibly implying about assumptions made more plausible by what he is questioning, namely in the implication of a basis of a negation that we as traditional protestants should understand ourselves as responsible for responding to in the traditional catholic position, when we are not. More simply put, the obvious logical priority that salvation does precede the sacraments' work and they themselves are a means of the grace of that very salvation is the more simple, helpful doctrinal corrective protestantism itself should be understood and acknowledged to provide more openly and clearly. Something very interesting that Bignon proved however is the catholic emphasis on sanctification as vital to saving faith and how for nominal catholics the protestant doctrine has proven very appealing because of a deeper understanding of biblical grace than sacerdotalism allows for and hope for a real righteousness we might enjoy, even a righteousness that is from God's and so our salvation rests upon his fulfillment of his own righteousness in the person of Jesus Christ and not our own lesser righteousness. This is such good news! I think his testimony like my own amplifies the agreement between traditional protestantism and catholicism that insists the need for a faith that empowers works is something that traditional protestant and catholic doctrine share that heterodox doctrine denies, that some Christian obedience is not a small place to find some agreements and even some partial spiritual unity amidst our even very consequential differences, especially as we try to work together to respond to a hostile society. The way that the emphasis on the catholic system can by overstatement of the centrality of deeds to the basis of our salvation reinforced by commitments that the sacraments even completely remove original sin often have undercut what better unity the protestant doctrine and theology could prove is often the most difficult and delicate situation in attempting to negotiating some basis for unity between the two, and saying so is almost never as inconsequential as it seems. There are always real people who have to live with the effects of doctrinal error/false doctrine and the difficulty and negative consequences they provide.

Do you know that the norvos order of the new catholic mass was based on the the liturgy of calvinism. the Book used in the mass is based on Cramer book.(16 century). Cardinal Bognini was assisted by 6 protestants in developing the norvus order mass.

Interesting video. I like how Bignon tries to avoid equivocation and straw-manning in his positions on justification by faith and on Calvinism.

Gavin, do you think equivocation on the term “Sovereignty” makes the conversation difficult? I find that when most Calvinists use the term, they have in mind “exhaustive determinism.” But other Christians use the term and mean something more like “exhaustive jurisdiction,” or “ultimate authority.”

It's basically the same, a Protestant would term it: 'not having the saving faith' and a catholic would termed it: 'commiting mortal sin'.

I greatly appreciate the gracious tone you always have Gavin and your guest fit it well too. I also appreciated Guillaume picking up on many common equivocations between Protestants and Catholics on the topic of justification. While I could tell that Guillaume was trying to be careful and represent Catholic teaching fairly, he still did fail to account for many important nuances. Some key ideas would be how faith is a gift and the root of justification (CCC 153, Trent Sess. VI, Chap. VIII). Others would be on the antecedence and nature of grace in every aspect of justification and its relationship to merit (CCC 2011 The charity of Christ is the source in us of all our merits before God. Grace, by uniting us to Christ in active love, ensures the supernatural quality of our acts and consequently their merit before God and before men. The saints have always had a lively awareness that their merits were pure grace.) That all said, I still believe the key idea missing here is that the imputed righteousness view of Luther and the Reformers was actually the novel theological idea whereas infused righteousness was the historic position of all of Christianity. I have a hard time not agreeing with Alister McGrath's conclusions that the Protestant view of imputed righteousness, the core idea of what the essence of justification is, was a novel idea with Luther and the rest of Protestantism. Now that I understand the Catholic position of justification better and see it does not anathematize the gospel or teach work righteousness like many Protestants often claim, it really became a question of what did the Church teach about justification throughout its history. McGrath's conclusion is that the sola fide via imputed righteousness was a novel idea never seen before the Reformation. "The point at issue is a little difficult to explain. It centers on the question of the location of justifying righteousness. Both Augustine and Luther are agreed that God graciously gives sinful humans a righteousness which justifies them. But where is that righteousness located? Augustine argued that it was to be found within believers; Luther insisted that it remained outside believers. That is, for Augustine, the righteousness in question is internal; for Luther, it is external. In Augustine’s view, God bestows justifying righteousness upon the sinner in such a way that it becomes part of his or her person. As a result, this righteousness, although originating outside the sinner, becomes part of him or her. In Luther’s view, by contrast, the righteousness in question remains outside the sinner: it is an “alien righteousness” (iustitia aliena). God treats, or “reckons,” this righteousness as if it is part of the sinner’s person. In his lectures on Romans of 1515-16, Luther developed the idea of the “alien righteousness of Christ,” imputed - not imparted - to the believer by faith, as the grounds of justification." **McGrath, Alister. Reformation Thought: An Introduction, 4th ed. p 125-126** "Despite the astonishing theological diversity of the late medieval period, a consensus relating to the nature of justification was maintained throughout …. It continued to be understood as the process by which a man is made righteous …. The essential feature of the Reformation doctrine of justification is that a deliberate and systematic distinction is made between justification and regeneration … where none had been acknowledged before in the history of the Christian doctrine. A fundamental discontinuity was introduced into the western theological tradition where none had ever existed, or ever been contemplated, before. The Reformation understanding of the nature of justification [as imputation] must therefore be regarded as a genuine theological novum. **Alister McGrath - Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification. Vol. I. Pg. 186** I pray you keep seeking after truth through all your online work, Dr. Ortlund, and will continue to greatly help the modern ecumenical movement with your gracious and irenic tone. God bless!

Thanks again Gavin! I’ve been meditating on the nature between providence and freewill. Couldn’t an all powerful God (Jeremiah 32:27) , who knows all possible futures (Samuel 23:1-14) and wills that all men be saved ( 1 Timothy 2:4) create a universe in which the greatest number of people would freely choose to love and serve him? I feel like that kind of synthesizes foreknowledge, providence and human choice. I’ve got to be missing something. Is that even a valid premise or do you have something else for me to chew on? Thanks always Gavin. Hoping to come visit your church when I come back to’ California

This was a good pairing. Love you both. I was happy to hear a bit more from you, Gavin, about calvinism. I want to put this out there. I've never heard a calvinist address it. That doesn't mean it hasn't happened though. I do not think Calvinism has any problem explaining how God could be just to do this thing or that thing. I do think that Calvinism has a problem explaining how God Could be perfectly loving. John goes so far as to seemingly identify God with love. (He says "God IS love"). Consider a scenario. Calvinism is true, and you are praying for the salvation of someone who is not elect. You do not know that this person un-elect, but you desire that this person be saved. You desire this person's salvation because of your love. In this scenario, I think that the calvinist has to say that you love this un-elect person more than God does. That strikes me as a solid "reductio". I hope the tone is not aggressive. ❤️

Great content here. Dr. Ortlund continues to impress with his style and approach, even if I disagree with his theology. To me, one of the biggest obstacles to dialogue between the ancient Churches and Protestants is the great variance that exists between the many Protestant traditions. It’s next to impossible to define Protestantism because it, as a whole, lacks normative authority. What one group of Protestants believe may be completely disregarded by another group. Would it be more edifying (and less likely to lead to caricaturization) if we avoid treating Protestantism as a monolith?

Great, maybe now you can also interview Leighton Flowers?

Ezekiel 33:12 says "the righteous shall not be able to live by his righteousness when he sins". That is the reason why Catholics need to repent and confess their sins to regain their righteous state back through Sacrament of Penance. That being said, God is not bound by Sacrament - He can forgive those outside the Church who truly repent without Sacrament.

I have a dear friend living in Lyon, anyone here who knows a good church over there?

Oh my goodness. Guillaume has such a simplistic view of the Catholic view of the sacramental system.

Interesting way of comparing the two schools of thought, however I think there is an underlying protestant presupposition that is largely ignored and completely changes the respective conclusions. You ask the question “What must one do to have eternal life?” but this presupposes what is meant by “eternal life” in the first place, which presupposes things about the nature of God and the nature of man that are fundamental to understanding orthodox Christian faith and salvation. This is where the real disagreement lies and where the Protestant doctrine of justification/sola fide really falls apart.

Great video! I’m curious, if Bignon thinks the issue is really Baptism and the sacramental system, then what does he think the debate between Lutherans and Roman Catholics is about?

17:30 The chief biblical word which is misinterpreted by mainstream Protestants is the word "grace" (greek "charis"). Grace is not synonymous or interchangeable with "mercy." Mercy is a passive forgoing of punishment or adverse response justly owed. Grace is an unmerited favor and power which is actively given to a Christian to give the Christian the ability to perform a specific good which he could not without the grace. "But he said to me, ' *My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness* .' Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the *power of Christ* may rest upon me." - 2 Corinthians 12:9 (ESV) "though formerly I was a blasphemer, persecutor, and insolent opponent. But I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief, and *the grace of our Lord overflowed for me with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus* ." - 1 Timothy 1:13-14 (ESV) Grace is the power of God that permits Paul to (1) overcome temptation and adversity (2 Corinthians 12:9) and to love His God and man when previously he was a sinner. We are saved by grace alone, meaning we are saved and justified by works God does through us after giving us grace and the power of the Holy Spirit to do them.

While it is true that neither side, romanist or protestant, find the ground of grace in man's moral righteousness it is equally true that, in the romanist perspective, man has libertarian free will. Justification then is wholly dependent on whether someone is not resisting, in a categorical sense, Gods grace. Thus, justification is ultimatively something that lies on the shoulder of man, which seems to me is one of the important point why the reformation happened. Thelogically speaking it seems to me that man must act, with his liberian freedom, on the same level as God in order to be morally sufficient. That is to say that we either manify God or godify man at this stage. We deny both positions and hold to compatibilism which states that man is free and God sovereign, but on ultimatively different grounds, which is the creator-creature distinction.

I worry that Guillaume Bignon's view of the difference between justification by faith alone and the Catholic view would put many of the major Reformers on the Catholic side (as they still believed in the saving efficacy of the sacraments and, broadly speaking, their necessity). This seems like an issue for someone trying to get to the "fundamental disagreement" between Protestants and Catholics! It seems to me that a better line--one which doesn't put Lutherans and most Anglicans on the wrong side--would be one focusing on the formal cause of our justification: is it the virtues of faith, hope, and charity imparted by Christ that inheres in us (i.e., God makes us righteous and so declares us righteous on that grounds), or is it the righteousness of Christ which does not inhere in us but that gets attributed to us anyway because of our membership in Christ? That seems to place things correctly, and group Protestants all in one and Catholics and Orthodox all in the other. Focusing on the sacraments is barking up the wrong tree!

You guys should have ten adorable Christian kids each to make the world a better place

I think folks are alert and sympathetic to the reality that Calvinists and non-Calvinists are trying to deal with the same difficult problems. The whole debate is whether or not theistic determinism is A) an appropriate answer, and B) a biblically justified answer. Just pointing out that both sides are trying to address the relationship between God’s Providence and Human Evil doesn’t move the debate anywhere. Put simply, there is a big difference between a view of providence which includes permission, and a view of providence in which “all things whatsoever come to pass” are positively and unchangeably decreed by God.

Is a Catholic who fully accepts all Catholic teachings including the Catholic view of justification saved?

ironic how faith alone is never mentioned in Holy Scripture, except to negate it!

Why do you need to be forgiven by God who makes us to sin?

Starting at 45 minutes Guillame describes the the Calvinist view of determinism/compatibilism in relation to God decreeing all things even all the evil in the world. Than he contradicts himself as he says that God does decree’s and determines the outcomes of our sinful decisions and everything evil in this world. yet when trying to give an explanation as to how it affects Gods goodness he gives and answer which in one hand he says that all the evil the happens under Gods watch/ decree is justified by the fact that God has good reasons to permit this. This was definitely a slip of the tongue because he uses the term permits, when under a calvinist paradigm any permission from God is ultimately his determined decree in which he either did himself or caused the desire of the individuals heart so that the individual would accomplish Gods determinate action in time and space. ultimately the answer he gives for evil in light of God is far worst of an issue for a calvinist than a non-calvinist. secondly the big issue is it seems they seem to only address Calvinism, Molonism, and Arminianism. which all three philosophical lines of thoughts only became a mainstay/mainstream line of thought around 16th and 17th centuries. Which gives the impression that these 3 views are the only views that christians prior to this time period held to.

What are your thoughts on God specifically predestining all good things, at least good things that last forever. Just as this verse says. "I perceived that whatever God does endures forever; nothing can be added to it, nor anything taken from it. God has done it, so that people fear before him." Ecclesiastes 3:14. And I would say that this includes the salvation of the elect as stated elsewhere in scripture. Also, God predestined any good works that abide eternally as a testimony to God, as stated here. "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them." (Ephesians 2:10) God also predestined sinners being redirected specifically in their sinful ways to predetermined ends, such as Joseph's brothers ("what you meant for evil God meant for good"), and also the king of Assyria in destroying the nations that were prideful(Isaiah 10), and also the very specific ways that Christ was crucified, expressed by the Apostles like this. "For truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place." (Acts 4:27‭-‬28) But all the good deeds that are merely human, and therefore tainted and perish, are not predestined to specific ends but just governed by God generally(by allowance) and left to simply run its course. And similarly, all evil that is not specially predestined for a good end is allowed for a general end, such as mankind seeing the futility of the world without God, but not necessarily molded precisely to a very specific end such as the crucifixion of Christ or Joseph's brothers. Those things that are allowed generally, God brings them to an end by "returning their deeds onto their head." And at the same time, God doesn't take a fully hands off approach, but restrains and leads and guides all throughout history, sometimes specifically, sometimes in general. I know God predestines and guides to very specific ends, which is clear in the scriptures. But it also seems clear that He gives much allowance for evil and endures it while longing to put an end to it, and gives rebukes saying, "if you had done this I would have done this." That seems to show a general application of sovereignty in some situations and very specific in others. Regarding salvation, I believe scripture supports that God enlightens specific people at specific times and places and that leads to salvation. But it also isn't at random. Look across the entirety of scripture and you see that humility precedes salvation. It may be that God is working to bring people low and then show grace and salvation. But even so the fact that humility precedes it is very important, I feel, to show God's wisdom and righteousness in who He reaches down and enlightens and saves and who He doesn't. I believe a balanced view of God's election unto salvation needs to keep this in view, that God shows grace to the humble and saves them, but resists the proud. However, I do think God is involved in lifting some up and bringing some low, so He is involved in bringing about a state of humility. And lastly, those who are chosen for eternal life are written in the lamb's book of life from the foundation of the world specifically, but those who go to hell are not predestined specifically, but they are judged from the books that are written since the beginning of the world, as stated in Revelation. This also supports the idea I am tentatively proposing that God predestined good things specifically and allowed bad things generally.

My take is that justification is getting mixed up with sanctification. In my view, justification is already done, in God's eyes, everyone is justified, because it's not about that. Sanctification is a process that starts when we realise God's unconditional love for all. Then we are on a path of becoming like that, where we stop being concerned about who does what, who is right, who is wrong, etc. and just want to know people for who they are, want that all shall be comforted, and want to actually live with all that entails, and stop trying to control. It's a very long process, and the sacraments help, as both a display of what it means to us to come together in eternity, and an actual drinking of the wellspring that enables us to live and love, where that is given before deserving, before worthiness, i.e. where there is forgiveness. But justification is only something one needs to talk about because we don't believe it, not because there is an actual bar set up by God. Believing it is just the light by which we can avoid wandering around in the dark forest of fear and distrust, and thus start to live instead. But it's bot a matter of not being justified, only af not knowing we are.

Surprised to find out Ortlund is a Calvinist.

48:55 (apologies if this is addressed later) - Calvinism in as much as it includes exhaustive divine determinism is only a problem as it pertains to matters of soteriology. All Christians acknowledge some form of determinism in dealing with the problem of evil. However - it remains true, as far as I can tell, that if you roll Compatibilism back far enough God is narratively transformed into a monster who has eternally and unchangeably decreed for all people to have a sinful nature that they would use to "freely" sin against Him. This monster is most glorified by saving some into eternal bliss and justly leaving others to be condemned so that His just nature might be manifested. Those who burn in hell had ultimately zero say in the matter and the so called say that they did have was according to a nature that they were decreed to have in the first place. If Calvinists could find a way to present God with a scenario in which God was morally committed (I can't even conceive a scenario in which God is compelled by anything other than God's nature) to giving Humans a sinful nature then I could still be persuaded that God had no way around being just and leave some to die. But right now all I have is God solving a problem that God created for no other reason than showing off His Just nature over His Loving one. There is on Calvinism - no reason why Jesus could not die for all. The only reason seems to be that God was unwilling to let his mercy, that is supposed to endure forever, trump his divine justice. It is only on Libertarian Free Will theology that God remains both just and merciful. Being merciful to parts of a group who all deserve the same punishment is profoundly unjust (from where I stand) unless that is what the individual want free from any compulsion. Moreover, how is the endowment of a sinful nature free from a libertarian choice not compulsion? I suppose this is all fine if you can swallow it - but I, for one, am unable to. And yes - It is my sincere conviction that the Bible does not teach exhaustive divine determinism all the way down to matters of Soteriology. Provisionists (Historical view Baptists) and Arminians, while quick to affirm God's sovereignty, are ultimately concerned with a God who is recognizable as good. On to the rest of the video 🙂

My criticism of Calvinism is that it makes God’s desire for his glory more central to his purposes and act in creating than his love. In a non-deterministic paradigm, God’s glory and his love are able to be equally central to his purposes and acts in creation and redemption.

I just don't understand how the protestant system provides more assurance. Constantly wondering if your faith is genuine and that it's not the supposed "not saving" faith of the future apostate, based on an unclear amount of good works that serve as evidence of your justification vs. the Catholic system which is very clear and leaves little room for uncertainty.

The phrase "justified by faith" appears four times in NT (Rom. 3:28, 5:1, Gal. 2:16, 3:24). The one in Rom. 3:28 is written in Greek passive present tense while the rest are in Greek passive aorist tense. Both present and aorist tenses do not indicate a completed justification by faith. If Scripture teaches faith-alone justification, then the Holy Spirit would inspire Paul to write the phrase "justified by faith" in Greek passive perfect tense.

I have a different view of Soteriology than Calvinism and Historical Arminianism. It is more or less a blend of both. I came up with it myself. Those who are elect, can never lose their salvation because the irresistible grace they experience prevents this. However, not all who are Christians are elect. Some people come to faith not based on their own choice but based on the testimony of other Christians. So those who are Christians who lose their faith (Heb. 4:4-6) simply do not have the same quality of faith as those who are elect (chosen). So there are two groups of Christians: those who are elect and those who are Christians based on the testimony of other Christians. Those who can lose their faith were like the people who initially "when they hear the word, receive it fwith joy. ... and believed for a while" But did not produce fruit. Those who are elect God does not allow them to lose their salvation, or rather, God gives them such reason for their faith that they do not have reason to reject Christ. So I believe in irresistible faith and Total Depravity but I do not believe God chooses arbitrarily, but God chooses the elect based on the Spiritual principle to "shame the wise". Further, we maintain our faith based on good works and the overall process of sanctification. If there is no sanctification in your life, you will be like the seed that fell on the rocks or the thorns. Further, Sanctification requires effort on our part. If we do not work with God (cooperation with the Holy Spirit) we can lose our salvation (sheep and the goats among other passages).

I respect Bignon, big time! Nonetheless, I’m not convinced of his defense of compatibilsim.

You can find in the Bible verses that are not compatible with the calvinist view like Jeremiah 19:5 "and have built the high places of Baal, to burn their sons in the fire for burnt offerings to Baal; which I didn't command, nor spoke it, neither came it into my mind"

Usually a fan but the defence of Calvinism was to me unconvincing. You need to have Roger Olson on to give an alternative perspective from within Protestantism

Bignon just has a very weird exposition of the will of God! Why that strange wager between "more" and "less" on Gods behalf? Is God not at absolute intent in all His actions? Bignon seems to say God wanted salvation more than the following of His moral law? He did not want His holy Son dead, but He wanted salvation "more" so it happened. But the killing of Christ achieved both perfectly in absolute union without the bizarre "more" and "less" scale. The mercy of God is simply in no way set over His call for justice, but are both manifested by Him in perfect harmony.

36:50 Gavin realizes he should have remained a Presbyterian

I would strongly suggest that anyone who truly wants an exhaustive study of this issue by a widely respected evangelical theologian, buy Norman Geisler's "Chosen But Free."

Did the whole church get it wrong until John Calvin came around?

Note: 2 Peter 3: 9: The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that ANY should perish, but that ALL should reach repentance. And 1 Timothy 2: 2 First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for ALL people, 2 for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. 3 This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires ALL people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for ALL, which is the testimony given fat the proper time. Note that Jesus explained, just as Paul echoed above, as to whom, inclusively, we are to love - that we are to love EVERYONE - and not only those who we desire to love. Note Romans 2:11: 9 There will be tribulation and distress for EVERY human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, 10 but glory and honor and peace for EVERYONE who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. 11 For God shows NO P A R T I A L I T Y. And John 3 makes God's total inclusion for whom He came to die for very clear: " 15 that WHOEVER believes in him may have eternal life. 16 "For God so loved the WORLD, that he gave his only Son, that WHOEVER believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did NOT send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him." (Note, this is NOT universalism - as God desires to save only ALL who BELIEVE / have faith in Jesus - as unbelievers will suffer eternal punishment!)

I fail to see how any man that claims to belong to Christ can determine his identity from another human being and thinks that he is pleasing to God. Much less the horrific character that said human being is ascribing to God!

Always appreciate your content and charitable manner Gavin! But personally, I just can't get around this ultimate conclusion: John Calvin's / Beza's God : (a Protestant overreaction that in the end undermines the beauty of any conceivable action by any conceivable being) The one who 'ultimately' determines everything. Any apparent 'freedom' of choice - to virtue or in the quest for God - is illusory. Despite philosophical and Scriptural gymnastics to try to get around this particular elephant in the room (and denying this accusation), in reality, God is inescapably the ultimate cause of the fall, sin, and consequently, sickness. He chooses who is saved or damned. True cooperation (synergy) is a myth. Life and Salvation - from start to finish - is all His doing, His one energy (monergism), therefore Love does not really exist - even in the way a small child would understand the word - because there is no real and authentic choice to either accept or reject God and His ways . . . even after regeneration. In fact, quite logically, the word " if " loses any real significance and meaning wherever it is found in Scripture; and so who can realistically be warned, blamed or condemned . . . or encouraged and rewarded . . . for anything ? Just submit ! you vile, worm like, totally depraved robots ; ) He is a monster... (straw man? Or being consistent man? 😉) (I am being cheeky, bear with me ; )

Wow this guy has NO idea what the Catholic Church teaches on justification. I’m so sorry to hear his comments. I’m Orthodox and we would say we are justified by God alone from regeneration to glorification and the sacraments are God working through material means to communicate His grace.

Is it really justification by faith if you are unconditionally elected to believe prior to faith?

Why believe somethig because somebody else believes it,clever or not, look at the evidence yourself and make your own mind,(the evidence for christianity is terrible,not to mention the logic behind it, a god dying ,(briefly,)to save us, from what? from himself,who else? did god have to 'die' so so he could let us into heaven and not send us to hell, that kind of 'logic' would be called ridiculous anywhere else.

And why did God need to incarnate his son to die a hideous death in order to placate God's anger? It all sounds ridiculous!

😂 he’s making a case for apostolic succession.

I'm not a Calvinist, but I see Arminisiam and Calvinism like a train track 2 rails next to each other, eventually meeting as one at the terminus. I've heard great teachings at my church by those who are Calvinist even though my church is not and even appreciated books such as Knowing God by J.I .Packer. In the end, we are brothers and sisters in CHRIST. 🙏

The issue with Calvinism is not that it holds that God allows evil for a good purpose. That is basic Bible teaching, shared with Arminians and open theists, The issue is in its false claim that the non-elect are morally responsible for their being reprobated, for that contradicts their claim that all human beings, by virtue of their descent from Adam necessarily reject God and do evil, unless God elects them to salvation. Calvinism's error is in holding that God creates some human beings with the specific intention of denying them any possibility of salvation, so that He might damn them. The Bible, on the other hand, teaches that God gives to every human being the ability to seek God, and the opportunity of responding to the grace of God offered in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. To hold the non-elect morally responsible for their damnation, you would have to affirm that they had a real possibility of choosing God, but you deny that by your teaching that every human being is damned in Adam and incapable of doing other than evil unless God intervenes to elect them to salvation. Bondage of the will and total depravity is not compatible with an assertion of moral responsibility. Calvinism state that all are not capable of responding to God.

Comment for algorithm.

Think about this, John Calvin is dead. Moles are still around burrowing beneath us. Calvin gone, moles are here, seems like Molinism is greater then Calvinism

If (God.exists()) { rejoice(); } else { sadFace(); }

Ok, I get that God allows evil for reasons we don't understand, but let's look at he macro picture. Calvin would have us believe that MOST of what God creates, he creates to build the kingdom of Satan. I don't see how he sold that to anybody.

Protestants, Calvinist or otherwise, are inconsistent in what they say about the relation of justification to sanctification and regeneration. They insisted on repudiating the Catholic teaching that justification is by God effecting a change in the person, his/her regeneration, by their using Luther's language about "an alien righteousness" and his image of a dunghill being covered by snow, and talk of "forensic" justification and acquittal quite separate from any interior change in the individual. Guillaume seems to contradict himself in holding to a merely forensic view on the one hand, and then going on to say that justification does involve a measure of sanctification. That is the mess that Protestant theology is in on the subject, in making a separation of justification from regeneration. Also, the Lord Jesus said, if you would enter into life, keep the commandments. Doing good, as you agree, is a necessary part of being a Christian, and Scripture is clear that nothing unclean or unholy will enter heaven, so why protest against the Catholic teaching of the necessity of doing good to attain heaven? True faith is that which is "active in love", and you seemed to concede that, and yet there is still the Protestant rhetoric about faith without works being enough. Some Protestants are bold in affirming that, no matter how they live, they will still get into heaven by affirming that they had put their faith in Christ, and that, together with their belief that it is inevitable that a Christian will always go on sinning in this life, can make for complacency about their moral state. The Bible, on the other hand, exhorts to holiness and cessation of sinning.

It is a very short step from atheism to calvinism, calvinism to atheism, many atheists are compatibilists, no surprise here, I personally know 15 people from my youth group (presbyterian, high church calvinists, WCF in pews, RC Sprout videos as curriculum) who are not atheists.....how about this, get to know Jesus.........all for scholars, intellect, exegesis, multiple languages to communicate etc on and on and on, ,,,,,, the god of calvinism is God the Father , who Jesus referenced in the Lords prayer..........let show a little diligence in application and not just head knowledge, heart mind body soul .......

To me Calvinism is God without love. Armenien is God without power. Christian Universalism is where I land currently.