This is brilliant! I implore all Calvinists to listen to this presentation. It is fair, balanced and very irenic. Most Calvinists I know, have never read or heard an actual Arminian give the other side and this is a great place to start. Congratulations to the presenter, who didn't hold back on countering the various points. It made it a remarkably interesting and engaging presentation.
I love this man! He is one of the soundest theologians I have ever come across. Definitely going to history as one of the best Arminian theologians of our time... long live Roger Olson 👏👏👏God bless him.
this is the best talk i have heard on this subject-and i have heard so many-i do have one verse i would like explained from calvinist -john 17:9-where Christ in his prayer says i pray not for the world.-thank you.
The words.... ALL... WORLD...never mean all or everyone...otherwise Christ has failed in securing everyone he died for...as well as failed the Father....failure in achieving the will of the Father would be sin...Jesus prays for those chosen by Him before the World began....His prayer is effectual and cannot be hindered by anything...for we are persuaded that neither death nor life nor things present not things to come shall be able to separate us from the love of God WHICH IS IN CHRIST JESUS...Why is paul persuaded, because He believes he is all powerful or because He believes God is all powerful? ....... 35Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst. 36“But I said to you that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe. 37“All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. 38“For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 39“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. 40“For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.” The word of God is clear but man is blind and dead !
Traduzcan estas predicas porfabor seran de mucha bendicion. Please translate these sermons into Spanish please, they will be a great blessing for me and many in Latin America.
I've been studying this for awhile.The only conclusion I can find is to reject both Calvinism and Arminianism. I'm just going to call myself a bible believing Christian.
Gameclipse mmmm. You can not reject both. You might be in thr middle. So ask yourself if you are more Armenian or more calvinist. both groups are bible believing Christians.
gameclipse.yes its good for you to reject both Calvinism and arminianism and only refer to yourself as a bible believing Christian.But if you do that then you face opposition f rom both calvinist and arminians.But Jesus said because i am hated you also will be hated.I am glad that you put Bible believing christian first before calvinism and arminianism. I also am that same way
Gameclipse If you believe it biblical that Jesus died not for just few limited people but for all humanity, then you are an Arminian. If you believe otherwise, you are a Calvinist.
God foresaw the future that others will not believe. In Arminian's theology, is there any possibility for those whom God foresaw to reject the Gospel to change and believe the Gospel?
- For a Calvinist prevenient grace is irresistible for the elect and does no good for the nonelect, for an Armininan anyone who comes under the influence of the Gospel receives some of measure of prevenient grace and is enabled to respond positively to the Gospel and accept God`s grace and mercy.
@@cord11ful he also chose Judas but not for salvation. The point is salvation is the work of God, not ours . Therefore it is not our choice. Our choosing or our faith is not from us, it is from Him. He is the one who calls His sheep.
@@josefrancisco8408 Agree 100%. That is also what 'Arminians' believe. Only Calvinists create this false dichotomy strawman that non-Calvinists think they can take credit for salvation. Seriously, you are arguing against your own strawman figment of your imagination. You bare false witness against brothers and sisters in Christ by asserting so casually that they believe something they do not. Be a student and actually LISTEN to what educated non Calvinists believe - they comprise the bulk of believers throughout history! The Calvinist TULIP systematic is the erroneous newcomer historically speaking. Humble yourself and listen to others in good faith.
Great interview. My only critique would be that there were too many interruptions on the interviewers part. I know you were probably just trying to get through it, but too much interruption. Be aware that some of these questions need longer answers in order for more thoroughness to come through. Otherwise, great stuff.
Before there was the five points of Calvinism, there was the five points of Arminianism, with was presented to the counsel at Nod and countered with there five points.
The tension between Calvinists and Arminians is rooted in differences in metaphysical assumptions - the great irony of this is that the bible itself is *not* rooted in metaphysical thinking, but rather phenomenological. If we're to cut through this seemingly never-ending debate, we have to get back to understanding the bible on its own terms, in its own context. That means we don't stop digging in the 16th century, or the 12th century, or the 5th century. The biblical context is rooted in very specific times and places with a unique set of presuppositions about how the world works - those biblical presuppositions often conflict with those of exegetes from those various chapters in church history, and they very much conflict with how modern, western individuals assume the world works.
Total depravity doesn’t mean you can’t do anything good. It means you can’t do anything good UNTIL YOU’RE REGENERATED. Arminians need to stop saying they believe in total depravity. This is why Calvinists say that Arminians can take credit for their salvation. When you ask a Calvinist why someone is saved and another is not, the Calvinist says that God regenerated some and doesn’t regenerate others. When you ask an Arminian why someone is saved and another is not, the Arminian says that God tries to save all, but some choose him and others do not. Therefore, the reason why someone is saved in the Arminian’s worldview is found in the choice of the person, not in God’s grace. The Arminian can take credit for his salvation because the only reason he is saved while another is lost is because he has a more humble heart, is more spiritually sensitive, is more reasonable, has a softer heart, or whatever. The point is this: Arminians think they’re saved because they made a good choice while others make a bad choice. Calvinists think they’re saved because God chose to save them, and the reason why He saved them is found only in His grace, not in the choice of the person.
The Bible states that there is none that does good, that before want to see if they are a slave of sin. This means that they are unable to do anything good my God standard and that is the only standard by which we will be judged. Yes man does good in comparison to man, but to say that man is not totally depraved in every area of his being is to not understand the gravity of sin.
Actually, the accurate response of both the Calvinist and the Arminian to why they are saved is: only by and because of God's grace. The difference is that the Arminians recognize their responsibility before God to "believe and receive", as Scripture teaches in so many places. The Calvinists presume they have received and then believed.
The Great Architecht of the human being, creator of an universe centered on the human beings, has an unique and unrepeatable project of life for each one of His servants. There eists an hearthly predestination, given that God wants all people be saved in the afterdeath life, and they will do the same in Paradise as what is done by angels since before the creation: beloving Him.
I dont see any issue with why God can not see every possible free decision of man? It seems that God does know every possible decision as he is all knowing. I also do not see any issue with why God can not exist outside of time and space, whilst also existing in time and space.
At 1:39:50,after a question about if people go to Hell for "not believing in Jesus", Olson then plays a "semantic shell game" by saying that "people don't go to Hell for not believing in Jesus, they go to Hell for rejecting the Grace and mercy of God". This is saying the same thing by playing games. If you don't believe in Jesus you ARE going to Hell BECAUSE Jesus IS the Grace and Mercy of God. Without Christ, there IS NO Grace and Mercy. These are basic understandings of the Faith!!!
Joul Varner- I am editing this comment. The "ordo salutis" that I hold to is this: The Reformed camp: ordo salutis is: 1) election/predestination (in Christ), 2) Atonement 3) gospel call 4) inward call 5) regeneration, 6) conversion (faith & repentance), 7) justification, 8) sanctification, and 9) glorification (Rom 8:29-30)
Also; salvation isn't in the ordo salutis. Salvation is the whole of all that God does in time in the lives of the elect. But you can speak of it in a sense. Like if I were to say, "I was saved when I was 19 years of age". And what we mean when we talk like that is that we were regenerated, placed our faith in God and repented of sin, and were justified when I was 19.
1:40:09 ...and GOD says: 》Okay, NOT MINE will be done but THINE...《 So the poor sinner goes to hell due to God's unability ( or is it unwillingness? ) to resist the sinner's will, whom he loves. Poor sinner. Poor God.
unfortunately for the Baptist, as soon as one gets saved, they turn into Calvinists, for they lose their free will to choose. Once saved your forced to go to heaven whether you want to or not. Your pit and rope analogy is good, except for the Arminian part. The Arminian is thrown the rope and God pulls Him out, why do you add water? That makes you a universalist, supposing everyone can swim. . God does not choose to create people, He gave that choice to man at the beginning He commanded man to "be fruitful and multiply". Man makes the body by choice to procreate, God instills the soul to all who are born.
Definitely an informative forum but the waffling and the "inability to understand" the real questions just made me more of a calvinist. Very helpful. Thanks.
Why is it that people think of Armenian-ism and Calvinism as the only two options. Calvinism is reformed Catholicism which is Augustinian Gnostic theology that Calvin a Catholic Augustinian monk brought out of the Catholic church during the so called reformation. Armenian is a word that Calvinists use as a derogatory defamation of any one who rejects the false teachings of Calvin. A non Calvinist is not an Armenian although they could be if they follow the teachings of Arminius instead of the Scriptures. Calvinism is a religion of narcissists who pride themselves as having been chosen by God for salvation over everyone else. As John MacArthur said on the radio one day "if God had made salvation available to everyone, I would not feel all that important. To a Calvinist the gospel lacks the power of salvation. The apostle Paul spent an entire day in Rome trying to persuade people of the gospel so apparently God neglected to tell him that the gospel wasn't really that effective. The New Testament is full of explanations of people rejecting the gospel not because God didn't want them but becasue of their unbelief. But Calvinist's want to go by definitions that the Catholic monk Augustine gave for election and predestination which are that God elects or pre3destine some to be save and the rest to be damned. But election is a word that means to choose and God Chose certain people for service. Christ is the elect one and God predestined "predetermined beforehand" that those who put their faith in Christ would have eternal LIFE. But Calvinists think that for God to be sovereign he had to be the one to make the choice, they even say that God determines all of the sins that each one of us would commit. Calvinism is a tool that the enemies of our souls uses to cause division among Christians and also to drive people away from God.
Your questions seem, to me, to imply that if one is neither, one is not Christian. I hold that Calvinism is high heresy and most Calvinists are cult members who are unsaved and damned due to holding false doctrine a false unsaving Christ and teaching a god that causes sin. Armoinians hold some false doctrine, and, as far as my understaqnding goes, do not hold to God ordaining any sin, and teach a Jesus that came to and wants to save all.
What role does Satan play in Calvinism? Has he never read Job? Has he never read the parallel passage of Kings and Chronicles where one says God tested David to sin and take a census, but the other says Satan tempted David to sin and take a census. Satan is on God’s leash. He can only go where God has him go.
God limits Satan, but does not micromanage or deterministically cause Satan to do what he does. God allows Satan a measure of freedom but God ultimately uses the outcome for good. That is how sovereign God is - even allowing His creatures freedom, God is ultimately still sovereign over all. We think in human terms when we equate sovereignty with deterministic micro-management. God is so much greater than that.
Fallen man: "Is not able to refrain from acts of inordinate desire…" "[Is not able to do] good works… [until]… rescued from his lostness." "Had his…free will [to do right]… destroyed." "[Lost all moral liberty except]…the liberty that loves to sin." "[Is not]…free to do right unless he is delivered from the bondage of sin and begins to be the servant of righteousness." "…is not yet free to act rightly." "[Has not]…the capacity of not sinning…" "[Is] either unable to understand what [he] wants, or else… not strong enough to accomplish what [he has] come to understand." "…do absolutely no good thing, whether in thought, or will and affection, or in action [apart from] the grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord." "[Must have the Lord] remove [his] hard heart, out of which [he does] not act, and… give [him] an obedient heart, out of which [he] shall act." "[Must be regenerated in order to come to the] faith… which obtains by prayer what the law commands." "Needs divine grace... to live well and righteously. For free will in the sinner did not perish [to the extent that] what they are pleased to do gives them pleasure." "[Has no] power… of free will [to believe]; because it will not be free for good if the deliverer have not made it free; but in evil he has a free will." "Is free in evil things because it takes pleasure in evil, is not free in good things, for the reason that it has not been made free." "Avails for sinning in men subjected to the devil; while it is not of avail for good and pious living, unless the will itself of man should be made free by God’s grace, and assisted to every good movement of action, of speech, of thought… born again in Christ." "[Is] free in evil, but for doing good it must be made free by God’s grace."
40:00 What I noticed, it that meanwhile John Owen wrote Christocentric theology of God's covenant, arminians, pentecostals, general baptists still believe in the covenant of work. Law won't save you! Only Grace through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ
If his four pictures are accurate, what is the difference between semi-pelagianism and Arminianism? He clearly is a semi-pelagianist. You making a decision to allow God to lift you out of a pit, you can claim all you want that you are doing nothing, but you are actually doing something, and therefore, that is a work. This is just a linguistic trick. Here we have an Arminian saying that Calvinists don't understand his position. He is someone who obviously doesn't understand Calvinism. And the Bible says you are dead. Dead people don't think to allow God to lift you out of the pit. This is sad. Dr. Olson is misrepresenting the debate. This is why he said things like, I know Calvinists don't believe this, but if I were a Calvinist, I would have to believe it. Truly, how does a system change from one person to another just because they believe it? It doesn't. You can't say if Calvinists don't believe something and I were a Calvinist, I would believe it. That wouldn’t be Calvinism then wouldn’t it? To be logically consistent, you actually have to accept the Calvinist position in full and not part to be able to criticize it fairly. Dr. Olson… This is called a straw man.
Whether accepting a gift or faith is a work or a merit as earning salvation is irrelevant. I don't waste my time with the semantics of "merit" or "work". I just ask this one simple question. What differentiates one who is saved and one who is not saved? In Arminianism, it's not grace that differentiates because everyone who hears the gospel has grace as common ground. It is obviously the decision of the believer that made the difference. In Calvinism, it's grace that differentiates because we saved by grace alone. Some have saving grace and some don't.
Interesting- This verse sounds Calvinist- but it just can't mean that- because I don't want it to mean that. Roger Olson has been well rebuded by James White if anyone is interested.
Acts 4:27-28 says Pilate, Herod, the Romans, and the Jews all sinned by crucifying Jesus because God predestined them to do it. There’s no questioning this fact: God. Predestines. Sin.
This is the explanation... John 6:35Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst. 36“But I said to you that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe. 37“All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. 38“For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 39“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. 40“For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.” Is Jesus a failure?
John Unsworth Jesus doesn't fail if He offers His Blood generously for all and those who accept it and follow Him are saved. How would you define that as a failure?
REAL ISSUE Humans and angels have a free will that can do all that it desires, be it a grateful addiction to give all they can give, or an ingrate addiction to take all they can take. That is not the issue, for the real issue is: Be it a positive addiction to be grateful, or a negative addiction to be ungrateful, is the holding power of such addictions impossible to overcome? For it is written: "Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. Romans 9:18
John Ellis That passage is in reference to the state of Israel at that time. (Not all Israel is of Israel) Rom 11: 7 ¶ What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded 8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day. God has mercy on some because of their faith (He has mercy on whom He has mercy) and the rest of Israel were hardened (and whom he wills He hardens). Hope that helps you to reject Calvinism :)
@@evanu6579 And Isaiah boldly says, “I was found by those who did not seek me; I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me.” Romans 10:20 NIV bible.com/bible/111/rom.10.20.NIV
“I can’t live with the problem of God’s character raised with Calvinism.” That right there is blasphemous heresy. Olson is on record saying he would tell God that He is not worthy of worship if He was as Calvinists describe. That is rank blasphemy. Olson is saying he gets to determine what God must be like in order to be worthy of worship. Olson has a god in his mind that must fit into his permanenters to be God, and that’s heretical because he’s worshipping an idol.
Try to listen more carefully to what Olsen is actually saying. He's saying that God has fully revealed His character in Jesus and in the kind of sacrificial love God has called followers of Christ to emulate. And that the character of God as presented within Calvinism seems to fall short of both standards. Therefore he concludes that it is Calvinism that has not accurately represented God's character. It is best to actually listen to and understand what people are saying before knee-jerk running to heresy charges.
If I said God is a ten foot tall purple chicken, you’d say I’m not a Christian because I have the wrong God. The same applies to open theists. They have a god that is not omniscient. That is definitional to who God is. Therefore, open theists’ god is no more Christianity’s God than Allah in Islam is Christianity’s God.
Then where is the line drawn between false teacher and true teacher? Paul makes this very clear as does Jesus, this is Salvation by grace. No in between. You can't say repentance brings grace and claim its not meriting. Instead its grace that brings repentance. God grants this. 2 Tim 2: 25. Its not a question of if ordained or not ordained. Those ordained to salvation believe. It really is that clear. When Jesus says YOU DIDNT CHOOSE ME, I CHOSE YOU, he means it. If you can't let go of that one step and realize you were DOA then you put God at our mercy to save. God is not at our mercy to save. We are at his. Rom 9: 16. Pull any verse out you want about us hardening our own hearts, plain and simple, its God alone who takes out the heart of stone, hardened in pride and unwilling to submit to him, and gives a new heart that will submit to him. Ezk 26. We are born sinners. God haters.
Chase Dart "You can't say repentance brings grace and claim its not meriting" ---Of course Christians can. Faith is the furthest thing from works as Paul makes clear over and over again.And 2 Tim 2:25 is not problematic for Arminians. It would be like saying “If you go and speak to that person, lovingly correcting her false perceptions of God and His word, God may use that to lead her to repentance.” But from this no one would think the grace was irresistible (which is clearly a false doctrine of Calvinism as Acts 7:51 makes clear). There is still a choice involved that the person makes in 2 Tim 2:25. "Pull any verse out you want about us hardening our own hearts, plain and simple, its God alone who takes out the heart of stone, hardened in pride and unwilling to submit to him, and gives a new heart that will submit to him. Ezk 26. We are born sinners. God haters."---Arminians have always thought this. Make sure and study the other view before posting! Arminians believe in Total Depravity, but God offered grace to all (Titus 2:11) so God gave each person the opportunity to have faith (John 3:16).
Chase Dart "So-and this is the crucial point-who is it that God has chosen to save? The answer is: those who have faith in Christ Jesus. As Paul writes in Galatians (which is a sort of abbreviated Romans), “So you see that it is men of faith who are the sons of Abraham” (Gal. 3. 7). Jew or Gentile, it doesn’t matter: God has sovereignly chosen to save all those who trust in Christ Jesus for salvation.That’s why Paul can go on in Romans 10 to say, “There is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all and bestows his riches upon all who call upon him. For ‘everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved'” (10. 12-13). Reformed theology can make no sense at all of this wonderful, universal call to salvation. Whosoever will may come.Paul’s burden, then, in Romans 9 is not to narrow the scope of God’s election but to broaden it. He wants to take in all who have faith in Christ Jesus regardless of their ethnicity. Election, then, is first and foremost a corporate notion: God has chosen for Himself a people, a corporate entity, and it is up to us by our response of faith whether or not we choose to be members of that corporate group destined to salvation."-William Lane Craig
REDRAGON12345 Romans 9 11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad-in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls- (nope, God did not look to see who would do what, God chose, because he has free will, you don't, see Romans 9:19) John 3:16, does not in anyway prove God gave everyone this ability, as a matter of fact, John 3 takes that away, 6-7. John 1: 13 tells us how people believe(verse 12). Titus 2:11 does not throw away election, as if God is dependent on man, so that God may save him. Isaiah 46:10, God does as he pleases. John 6:65, you CANT unless God gives it, John 6:37, everyone God gives this to, will come, and will be saved(irresistible). William Lane Craig, is a Molinist not Arminian(so much for studying the other guys view huh) Arminianism, errs worse than Pelagianism, because it has lower view of God's law. If you think repentance is based on your choice, and not a gift, then it is in fact, priniciply the same as a work. Lust in the heart earns wrath, yet a choice for God doesn't earn grace? Let's try being consistent. Grace, brings repentance, Grace, causes faith. Is Eph 2 completely lost on you? Completely unable to do anything to please God, till God showed you love, till God, was pleased to reveal his son to you. All the verses you gave, speak about people with faith, they say nothing about how these people got it. Ezk 36:26, tells us. John 1:13 tells us. John 6:44, John 6:65, tell us. John 3:16, does not. You tell us, man can choose to believe, his belief precedes regeneration, John 12:39, says man cannot. Romans 9:11 tells us, God did not look down the corridor of time to see who would choose him then he acts, it tells us, God chooses first, then we act accordingly. (Romans 9:19 is plain, yet of course, this is your premise, God can't find fault if we can't resist, Paul says he can.) Now, you can go on thinking man, in his flesh can do something pleasing to God(repent, have faith) but I will believe his word, Romans 8:7-8 and John 3:6(lol and you think you choose to be born) You can claim, Titus 2:11 proves his grace is irresistible, but Jesus says its not, John 6:37, which refutes your premise, "God only saves those who allow God" Romans 8 29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.(he chose, before the foundation of the world, before, there was a future to exist, Eph 1)
Chase Dart I'd like to look at these Calvinist proof texts one at a time with you if you would be willing. Not to win an argument, just out of the love for the truth. I enjoy these kind of studies and iron sharpens iron.
You could define it that way, but that assumes there are not other perspectives that fall outside of Calvinism and Arminianism. To define yourself as “anti-calvinistic “, only says you are against Calvinism, but gives no indication of what you actually believe. People who have never heard of Calvinism aren’t anti-calvinist, right? What if you hold to some of the Calvinistic perspectives, like preservation of the saints, and reject others (like limited atonement)??? It’s just not a cut/dry for or against, because it isn’t a dichotomy we are dealing with, there are a plethora of positions that can be held.
Justin Wilson , you just painted another false dichotomy. I don’t believe either of those positions. That’s my whole point. Salvation is synergistic. Jesus accomplished work on the cross reconciles all mankind back to the father, because Jesus became sin when he had no sin, and bore the punishment of sin when he had no sin. Reconciliation is not salvation thought. Now that Jesus has reconciled man back to god, we must submit to Jesus In faith unto obedience, and endure to the end. If we expect to see heaven. When we are judged after this life, the father will either see Christ’s because we are in him by faith unto obedience, or he will see us and we will stand condemned for our sins.
Good but a bit shallow. It is a pity that Dr Olsen gave such a lame stand on open theism. How can a person say open theists are still Christians? Olsen contradicted himself. He emphasized on God's character and appear to defend it, moreover he affirmed there are essential issues... Now is not all-knowing is God's nature and is an essential truth... why then Olsen is so weak here.... this is the problem with the Arminian camp when it comes to open theism because that is one of the logical end of it.....
Believe what the calvinists say about election. Believe what Armenians say about everything else in general including how a person is saved and you wont have much of anything if anything in the bible that contradicts what you believe.
Calvin did not believe God chose some out of the mass of damned humanity; Calvin's doctrine of unconditional predestination to salvation for certain individuals was irrespective of the Fall. Olson confuses Augustinian infralapsarianism with Calvin's supralapsarian theology.
Simon Wartanian Well, it can´t. What Wesley meant by that is of course that it cannot mean that because that contradicts so much on so many levels/aspects.
055:57 "So hears the question...", he says. I can't speak on behalf of ({all Christians who hold to God's SOVEREIGN sovereignty and human responsibility as well as human CHOICE (that was made by US ALONE and NOT BY GOD (even though scripture teaches that God is SOVEREIGN over ALL things not ALL things but one (the decider of who is saved and who is damned; man, or GOD ALMIGHTY, the MOST HIGH, and the CREATOR OF ALL THINGS (besides evil; humans decide to sin, God doesn't make us (even though he is SOVEREIGN OVER ALL THINGS. Because remember, scripture ALSO teaches that we have choices to make and MUST make daily, and they are ALL, either for God or NOT for God.}) .....BUT..... I CAN speak for myself. And my church, as well as EVERY CALVINIST I KNOW OF doesn't believe that. He said,
He mentions Greg Boyd, unfortunately Greg Boyd does not believe that God knows the future choices of men. That God is constantly growing in knowledge. This is not the God that is mentioned in the Bible. Since Greg Boyd is an open theist , he teachers a very error fill doctrine. Since the speaker considers Greg Boyd one of the teachers of Arminianism that should be studied, he himself is deceived. This is very sad to hear him promote Greg Boyd.
the truth is this weather you want to believe it or not is that when it all boils down to is weather regeneration proceeds faith. Thats right God does the regenerating first and then you have the ability to come to him,. He doesn't do it for everyone. He picks and chooses whom he is going to give the gift of eternal life too. This is why the gospel is so offensive. because God doesnt save everyone.
“Why is anything evil if God determined it? Why should I look at the Holocaust and fight against it?” What a sophomoric question. Does he not realize that God has a decreed will and a prescriptive will? After all, Acts 4:27-28 says God decreed for murder to occur, while God says in His Law that murder is evil. Humans are held accountable for obeying the prescriptive will of God. When we don’t obey God’s prescriptive will, which is reflective of His righteousness, we are committing evil and will be judged by it. Those sins are predestined by God to occur by His decreed will for His glory. That will never provide an excuse however because people sin and want to sin. It’s quite a simple answer. Olson doesn’t care though because he admitted his ultimate authority is himself. He demanded that Calvinists present an argument that fits his definition of goodness, not God’s. At that point, you just acknowledge that the man is full of himself and let it go.
I really thought watching this that I was going to hear some deep wise reasoning. I was disappointed to hear base thought and human reasoning, nothing with any substance or biblical reasoning...! I am even more confirmed in my opinion that arminianism is a 'false gospel' and definately heresy. He quotes wesley as saying that if the calvinistic interpretation of romans 9 is true, God is not good ! There we have it arminians do not believe God is good as the Word of God is very clear to those whose eyes are opened, those who cannot believe it will not believe it and go to great lengths to prove their unbelief...!
+John Unsworth I thoroughly convinced that Calvinism portrays a god who saves a few according to his whim and sends billions to hell without giving them grace to repent. Yet the God of the Bible teaches us to act and judge others fairly and without favouritism. The sovereignty of the Calvinist god is so controlling that not even Satan could have rebelled had this god not ordained him to as surely as God said let there be light and there was light. Calvinism makes its god and no other the true author of sin. Then the Calvinist turns round and says this does not do away with human responsibility for sin - it says God will hold man (male and female) responsible for his sin but fails utterly to say how this is possible without this god making the man sin in the first place. You have a puppet master that makes others obey and then blames them for the things he makes them do. No - this is not the God of Jesus or the Bible. Calvinists would end up drowning Jesus for preaching salvation by work in John 6:29. It is not the god of the bible that Wesley rejects it is the idol of Calvinism.
+TomFielding +john unsworth It is clear that Calvinism is logical and moral nonsense, as you correctly outlined, which is why Calvinists will only argue from Bible verses, not from the implications of other, contradictory Bible verses, or logic or morality. The Calvinist God is selfish and cruel and repels ordinary people of goodwill, and Calvinists need to really hate most of mankind to make their system work. I believe both those things displease God, and I think any Calvinist who drives a savable person away from Jesus with his ugly theology and aggressive indifference to others' suffering should be guilty of hell-fire, if they "caused anyone to stumble."
+Jerry Dodson So, every time MacArthur, Piper, Sproul, White etc speaks bad about arminianism or non calvinists in general they have a non calvinist there as well? ah.. no!
It depends on who is organizing the forum. I agree that the Ligonier conferences don't invite Arminans, and that's a shame. I think both sides should get equal time.
The basic difference between the True Gospel and Arminianism is that Jesus PAID for the sins of ONLY His sheep and Arminianism pretends Jesus PAID for the sins of everyone ever born... which, of course is heresy because the people in hell are then PAYING for the sins already PAID... and nowhere in the Bible does it say that any sin must be paid TWICE. ---------
Im not impressed by olsen,I've listened to multiple debates between the two camps and arminians are extremely frustrating to listen to, I don't like the term, calvinist , I prefer biblicist, as I've heard, C H Spurgeon say calvinism is just a nickname for the gospel
It's amazing how this speaker never refuted any Calvinistic interpretations of the bible.. he didn't even dare to interpret romans 9 when he was asked... my 11 months baby could do better than him...
Also, Arminians need to stop lying and saying that no one was “Calvinistic” until Augustine. That’s a historical lie. Look up online Clement’s first epistle to the Corinthians (1 Clement), the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (The Didache), and The Epistle to Diognetus. Those are just three of a number of sources in the second century that blatantly teach the doctrines of predestination of all things according to God’s will, unconditional election, and irresistible grace. It is a historical lie to say the early church wasn’t Calvinistic.
