Responding to Calvinist Arguments for Limited Atonement 

😊

All the while failing to recognize when you bought pizza 🍕 for everyone it ended up being a waste of your money & meaningless. Is that what Christ did ? Died on the Cross for everyone who ever lived and for those who end up in Hell paying for their own sins Christ dying for them ended up being meaningless ? Imagine that…you have to believe in a God who formulated a plan to redeem all of mankind, looked down the corridors of time to see his plan would end up being an almost complete catastrophe seeing most of the world will end up in Hell according “the MANY who enter the broad road” and yet God still allowed and set this plan in motion…that’s the God you have to believe in based on your position.

@@Mattissaved Yes. That is what I believe. His offer of salvation is open to all, but only those who accept his gift of salvation will receive it. Many will chose not to follow or receive his grace. If predetermination or predestination is true, then God created billions of people, only to condemn them to hell. I believe we have a choice. He does not make us follow.

Simple but efficient analogy

@@turtlepants I applaud you for sticking to your guns but I couldn’t ever bring myself to believe that…I cannot reconcile God sending his Son to die and suffer for the sins of everyone who ever lived, he died for their shame, guilt,contempt in absolute brutal fashion. And then those who don’t believe in him are sent to Hell to pay for the same sins Jesus already paid for on the Cross…they pay for their own shame, guilt, contempt. That is a form of Double Jeopardy, being charged twice for the same offense. Someone is being treated unjustly, either Jesus or the sinner. But here’s perfect justice…. Jesus died for the sins of only those he will save. (Matt 1:21) The unbeliever ( Rom. 1:20) is paying for his own sin in hell in perfect justice. Nobody is treated unfairly.

God bless you brother! I had the same feelings too, but when a system of theology cannot be simply explained by the Scriptures and we have to take verses out of context or change definitions to fit our system then our system is wrong! I pray you continue to grow in grace and knowledge of the Lord brother! 🙂

@@stevensingleton1855, thank you!

Had the same struggle. Theology changing the way I witness, the way I interact with the lost. Very helpful. May God bless!

Doctrines of grace should lead you to witness actively in love. I don’t understand what gospel were you living in.

Awesome 😎

Saying you're open to being wrong is not the standard of humility. Christ is the standard. The most Christ like and humble men I know are Reformed in their theology.

I do not believe that those who support the doctrine of ELECTION are spiritually proud FOLLOWERS of KING 👑 YAHSHUA HAMASHIACH. We could say exactly the SAME for non-Calvinist - perhaps more proud than "Calvinist" I wouldn't call myself a "Calvinist" at face value but more of a Bible believing FOLLOWER of YAHSHUA HAMASHIACH.😱😱😱🙏🙏🙏🙏

I wish he would actually read all of 2nd Peter before pulling a verse out of context to suit his personal preferences. If you read 2Peter3:9 in context, you would have had questions at around 29:40 in the video when Mike pondered confusedly that when God is being patient toward "*YOU*" in 2Peter3:9, Calvinists teach that Peter is speaking of the Elect but he waves his hands and poo-poos such a notion. Where could that crazy idea come from? Bereans who actually read the rest of 2 Peter might point to chapter 1: 10 Therefore, *BROTHERS*, be all the more diligent to confirm *YOUR* calling and election. Peter is writing to the Elect (just as He did in his first letter - 1Peter1:1). Who besides the “Elect” would be interested in confirming their “election?” This is not complicated. This is 6th grade reading comprehension. Peter is telling the family of God that God is being patient for their sake in delaying Jesus' return. Peter has just spent a chapter and a half railing against *THEM* (the unbelievers) to warn the Elect about listening to them and falling for their crap. 2Peter is a riff on Psalm 73, which also recommends taking the longer view instead of envying the wicked, who often seem insulated from the persecution and suffering that Peter's readers were dealing with. If 2Peter3:9 were speaking from a human point of view, Peter would have said that Jesus has not returned because God is being patient with *THEM*. But it doesn't, because Peter doesn't ever ever ever speak of God's love for "them" in his letter. Speaking from God's eternal viewpoint, Peter only repeats the point that judgment is coming for *THEM* - to God, *THEY* are only like wild animals, born to be caught and destroyed - as Peter is warning the Elect (*YOU*) in his letter to avoid being misled or discouraged by *THEM.* So 2Peter3:9 is just reminding Christians who are suffering that Jesus' delay is only motivated by His love for all of His people, including those who have not been born or accepted Him within space and time. He will return when the last of His sheep have come to faith. As 2Peter3:15 says, "count the patience of our Lord as salvation." Not the optimistic hopes of maybes and possibilities but as Jesus securing the actual salvation of His sheep, whom He knows by name.

I would never say, "this is the gospel, but is not really, others may be right"... When the truth is the truth, it will set you free.

@@booner016 I agree Christ is the standard, yes. But what about people who are not open to admitting that they could be wrong. Are they humble?

Even though Jesus said to not plan but to speak from the heart. Let your nay be nay and yay be yay.

josh portie CONTEXT. That was said with respect to being persecuted and brought before the courts of unbelievers. It was NOT saying you should never use critical thinking or reply with a well thought out response.

@@joshportie The heart is desperately wicked. Who can know it? I’d hate to be speaking desperately wicked things all the time.

@@joshportie you didn't actually read the Bible did you?

I couldn't agree more, Judah. The beautiful thing is that when I watch these, I learn just as much about responding to criticism with love and grace as I do about theology, and that is something admirable and extremely rare these days. Keep up the good work in the Lord, Mike. God bless you.

Same!

Same cuz is almost a anthem flag for reformed church

And the photoshops?😂😂

Uvvvvuvvu8 hv 9 iv. Vv iu uihv8 u 8hvv u 8u h. H 9u vu8i. V. Vhuhv uvvui. H vh8 8. 8 h. Vhvv

Vugv v u v u vuv8 8vvv9u iivh v

Photoshopped? They didn't really go? 🤣

I have an honest question: How do I keep unity with a doctrine that attacks the very core principles of the faith? This doctrine is growing rapidly and it has been destructive to so many people. I know there are brothers and sisters who are Calvinists so I don't know how to balance this situation. I'm in agreement that everything needs to be done in love regardless and I do not WANT to divide, but the Calvinist and non calvinist views on gospel issues are like oil and water. Maybe that is not so, but I'm finding it hard to see otherwise. I don't want to have to divide with the people but I don't know how to not divide with the doctrine? HELP!

Loves2HugItOut Tough question honestly. Calvinism actually gave me a lot of doubts when I first encountered it, so I DO think the tenants can have a lot of adverse effects. But we have to remember that both Calvinists and non-calvinists are seeking biblical truth. They have, in my estimation, a flawed view of the atonement but it isn't a sin to be wrong. They aren't trying to be malicious or warp text, they're trying to interpret scripture truthfully. Just try to give their intentions the benefit of the doubt. Also, you probably already know this but it's worth repeating: The Calvinism debate is non-essential to salvation. This means two things. One, your salvation isn't in jeopardy when falling on either side of the issue. And two, Calvinists are your brothers and sisters no matter what. We'll be seeing them in heaven so treating them with love is a necessity. We should be praying about it too. Not praying that Calvinism would go away, but that God would reveal to us biblical truth. It could turn out that Calvinism is true. If it is true, I pray that God would reveal that. And if it isn't, I pray that God would reveal that to the Calvinists of the world and that they would begin to teach sound doctrine. In the end, we have to love one another no matter what. This doesn't mean we shouldn't address wrong theology.

Sorry for the huge reply lol. Got carried away.

Quick Attack Films this is an absolute lie. It is very much a salvation issue. Calvinists flat out call God a liar and refuse to accept His word. If I had remained true to the reformed theology I grew up with I never would’ve sought Jesus and never would’ve been saved.

First of all, what I said is "an absolute lie?" I'm trying to deceive you? Not the case. Second, no. Believing God determines everything doesn't damn one to hell. Third, Calvinists CAN'T deny biblical essentials like how to act and how to be saved. And they don't... for the most. There are always people on the fringes, no matter the biblical position that don't act in accordance with the bible. For instance, people brought up to Jeff Durbin whether they need to evangelize because of God's determinations. He basically said "Of course you need to! Because that's what the Bible says to do." Respectfully, I think you have a warped view of calvinism brought on by the extreme views held by either the people around you or maybe the people you've seen online. To summarize, the idea of calvinism may be flawed theology, but it's surely isn't damnable theology.

A flawed man made theology.

Uncalvinize yourself and trust in Jesus.🙏🏼🇺🇸

God bless you and keep you and your loved ones. I agree Mike is a trusted teacher encouraging us to look to scripture.

@@chuckdriver8269uncalvinize is such a weird word haha

No you're not.

All in the Bible does not mean all, all of the time.

If no one is pre-destined to hell than that means there is either no Hell or people can over power God! If God is not sovereign, than God is not God? And the existence of Hell and the fact that most people will be in Hell not heaven is made very clear all throughout scripture. Narrow is the way.

@@christianpolitics260 No. You need to think more deeply about this and try to understand what scripture teaches, and get away from what Calvinism has taught you. Of course God is sovereign. Sovereign means king. God is over all. That does not mean He controls everything that happens. Pride and lust are not from the Father, and He does not tempt anyone. There are quick, simple examples that the Calvinistic idea of sovereignty is clearly wrong. The only people that are destined for hell, are those that are condemned. Jesus says in John 3 that if you do not believe in the son, you are condemned already. But in John 6, we see that the will of the Father is that those who look to the son and believe will have eternal life. We see that He gave Himself as a ransom for all men, and that God wants all to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth. Hell and judgement is reserved for those who choose to suppress the truth in unrighteousness and trade it in for a lie. Before you were a believer, you were destined for hell, and now, you're not. From the foundation of the world, God has set up reality so that the faithful in Christ were destined to be saved, to be conformed to the image of the son. He has placed before us life and death, and He wants us all to choose life, and we all can.... but not all of us will. I pray that you would let scripture shape your thinking on this.

@@christian_gamer_guy6447 This is such a well stated reply. I was considering replying to @ChristianPolitics to note several wrong assumptions in his argument (such as it was). I think you covered them succinctly.

@@christianpolitics260 you’re mistaking foreknowledge with predetermination. God gives us free will, he knows what choices we’ll make before we make them, but that doesn’t’ mean God destined some for Hell. How can an all knowing, all good and all powerful God create a world with such evil? Simple because of free will. Calvinist’s entire world view denies free will.

😂😂

Why buy something if you know the person isn't going to like it, want it, or appreciate it? If you know you will have to throw it away or return it, why not just get them something they do want...if you know. God made some for eternal life, and some for destruction. Who are you to judge God for His creations?

@@dw-rh6fb. So, why did you ask the question if you knew what the response would be?

@@jackslapp9073 i don't.

@@dw-rh6fb. Yes, you do. You know what free-will is, right? BTW, where did Muse judge God in the comment?

@@jackslapp9073 free will? Are you talking about the idea that God isn't 100% sovereign and that reality plays out independently of God's will? Where did i say Moses judged God? Im talking about what Paul said.

Haha. Amazing how I read this comment while watching and was really confused that I didn't hear him say that, then 5 seconds later I'm at that point in the video. Chronological comments

I've heard this too. That the gentiles are just jews outside of of Israel.

@@Sirach144 I believe they say that the “gentiles” are the 10 lost tribes of Israel.

Just like the Bible says :)

Everyone descended from Adam.... We're all cousins by blood..... Jesus is the uniter of all mankind except for those who refuse him as the Messiah... God will not be mocked, every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Yahoshua Hamashiac/Jesus the Messiah is Lord and Savior!

@@skippy675 you're too smart for me and possibly too smart for God

That's not the teaching. ALL are able to believe and accept salvation. Most CHOOSE to be damned.

You are so right. Some of them deny it, but Calvinism is determinism. I, too, choked on the idea that God created souls specifically to be damned.

@@michaelbee2165 Please explain? I thought some are elected and others not.

Mike Winger has a lot of inconsistencies in his theology! Though I watched some of his videos but not all. Some of his ideas on other topics like Roman Catholicism and Baptism are good. But not this one. The problem with Mike Winger is that he lacks exegesis and hermeneutics on this topic. He can't really exegete Romans 9! Also, Mike is saying that Salvation is Synergistic. The problem with that view is that you make man Sovereign and not God. He doesn't really understand what the Apostle Paul said in Ephesians 2. We are saved by grace alone through faith alone not by works so that no one may boast!

@@samuelaguilar9668 You might enjoy Leighton Flowers on this issue. He was a Calvinist himself for over 10 years, so has a good grasp of the doctrine. Mind you, I think Mike Winger is pretty good at digging into the scriptures too.

@@samuelaguilar9668 Did you watch his video on Romans 9? Can't exegete scripture or can't say what you want him to say?

@@samuelaguilar9668 Mike is not synergistic. That’s blatantly false unless of course you believe faith is a work. And under that crumbles everything else you said.

I'm afraid you're making a serious mistake by applying a universal meaning to the word "all". It actually ends up making the Bible nonsensical mess. The word "all" (just as "everyone" or "all men", etc.) has a context, and that context cannot contradict the rest of Scripture. Firstly, you must always ask "All of what?" Is it "all without exception" or "all without distinction"? It has to be one of those two in each passage. And in fact, you have to be able to determine this sometimes within the same passage, and it cannot be arbitrary, or else again, you're contradicting other Scripture, and that's a No-No. Rom 3:23-24 "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus." So ALL have sinned, and ALL are justified. While part one is universal, part two is not, for it begs the question EVEN THE UNREPENTANT? The real question is ALL OF WHAT? However, the people who believe in universal salvation look at that verse and say "See?! All have sinned BUT all are justified free by God's grace -- Universal salvation!" But you and I and Mike know this is not the teaching of Scripture. The question you must ask yourself is this -- Does God help sinners to save themselves, or does God saves sinners by Himself? This might sound like a ridiculous question for a legitimate Christian who knows that their works played no part in their salvation, but think of this -- What is the difference between you and the other person who heard the same Gospel, and instead of believing upon the Lord Jesus, was offended and went deeper into their sin and idolatry? Why did YOU believe and THEY did not? Is the difference IN you or from WITHOUT you?

@@stegokitty Christ died and we are given a choice. Their is only one way into heaven, and that is through Grace. It's a gift, and the gift can only be received. We don't do anything to get into heaven, we just believe and get everything He ever earned! Why don't Calvinists stop at the word Whosoever in John 3:16?

@@jaxsonfanta5420 I noticed that you didn't address what I said, but went on to another related issue. Do you, or do you not concur that we must be careful in how we interpret "all" and other such words in the Scriptures (or anywhere for that matter), lest we come away with ideas that are utterly foreign to the meaning of the Scriptures? Just so you know, I can provide for you a plethora of other Bible verses that show the fact that "all" almost never means "everyone without exception" but rather "everyone generally" or "everyone without distinction". So I will be glad to touch base with your follow up comments, if you'll kindly respond to what I said and presented as an example of why "all" doesn't mean "every single person without exception". Thanks in advance.

​@@stegokitty All doesn't always mean everyone all the time, but in the context I was speaking of in the original verse John 3:16 the whosoever is the word I am most concerned with. Every knee will bow and every tongue confess... Does that mean there is a special group of people that this verse isn't referencing that won't be bowing the knee when Christ returns? In the case of John 3:16 you have to change the meaning of the verse to make it say something other than what it is explicitly saying, which is that whoever puts their faith in Christ is saved, whoever doesn't is not saved. 'All of those who put their faith in Christ' shall be saved is perhaps an easier way of saying it so we are both on the same page. How predestination works itself into this is beyond me, lol... While all doesn't always just mean the word all, it does in this context, and this verse certainly doesn't say anything different than that lest we add to scripture, which I have seen Calvinists do to this verse to fit their predestination mold.

@@jaxsonfanta5420 //All doesn't always mean everyone all the time ... // Yes, it does. It means everyone IN the context of what is being said. //... but in the context I was speaking of in the original verse John 3:16 the whosoever is the word I am most concerned with. I'm not sure why you're stuck on "whosoever" as if it makes any difference. Whosoever means "anyone" or "everyone" and it means "anyone" or "everyone". Everyone who trusts in the Name of the Lord shall indeed be saved. Who the heck ever said anything differently? There's not a Calvinist on the planet who denies that ANYONE who believes upon the Lord Jesus Christ shall be saved. So why are you pretending that this is the case? The question concerning the Doctrines of Grace is asking the question why does one person believe and another person disbelieve? Just as I asked you in my first response, and it appears that you dodged it, I'll ask you again. WHY did you believe and the other bloke sitting on the same pew heard the same Gospel and thought it was as attractive as a frontal lobotomy? From where comes the DIFFERENCE? The difference is EITHER something that is inherently in you, something more noble, more wise, less sinful perhaps, than was in the other person who disbelieved. OR the difference is from OUTSIDE of you -- something that was done TO you, by God, that was not done to the person who disbelieved. You were both unbelieving idolators of one sort or another (you're not going to deny this are you?) and you both heard the Gospel. You believed, and he didn't. WHY? Either you're a better person than the other person or God gave you a grace He didn't give to the other person. Please answer this question. //Every knee will bow and every tongue confess... Does that mean there is a special group of people that this verse isn't referencing that won't be bowing the knee when Christ returns?// I highly doubt that. I think even the souls in Hell will have to admit that Jesus Christ is Lord. They will know their guilt before the infinite, eternal, and unchangeable God, and have not even a shadow of doubting it. They will bend the knee just the same as those who are ushered into everlasting blessedness. Does that help? //In the case of John 3:16 you have to change the meaning of the verse to make it say something other than what it is explicitly saying, which is that whoever puts their faith in Christ is saved, whoever doesn't is not saved.// Again, no Calvinist changes anything in that verse. Perhaps some new person to Calvinism who hasn't understood things properly -- like the one who go about saying "We don't have free will" .... which is only half true, and we should talk about that later since it's directly connected to the necessity of sovereign grace, but it's also half false. So new Calvinists should not go around saying that. //'All of those who put their faith in Christ' shall be saved is perhaps an easier way of saying it so we are both on the same page.// Already established and as you can see, I'm wholeheartedly in agreement with you. NO ONE IS LEFT OUT if they believe upon the Lord Jesus. //How predestination works itself into this is beyond me, lol... // Well that's precisely the point isn't it? Now I'm not claiming to have all knowledge of how predestination works, and I'm glad that you didn't speak as if predestination was not a Biblical doctrine. However, predestination is precisely the reason why one person believes and the other doesn't. See, I believe you're not interpreting John 3:16 simply as "everyone who believes shall be saved" but rather, and you may correct me if I'm wrong here but ... I believe you're forcing a meaning onto "whosoever" that is waaaaaayyy more than "everyone". I believe you're applying super-powers to "whoseover" -- that people who are still DEAD in their sins, enemies of God, opposed to the things of God -- that these people, by the almighty power of their fallen wills, have the ability to turn from their sins (which they love, and will defend to their deaths ... which you can see by the insane things that abortion advocates and transgender folks and atheists saying all the more these days) unto Christ, whom they LOATHE (though they don't mind the idol "Jesus" they've invented in their wicked imaginations) in saving faith, repenting of their sins (which they deny are sins), repenting of their self-righteousness (a label which they try to pin on you and me, when it's actually they who are self-righteous), and turning from their idols (which they love, love, love, love, love!) and trusting in Christ .... whom they do not trust. Do you see the problem here? //While all doesn't always just mean the word all, it does in this context, // See above. //and this verse certainly doesn't say anything different than that lest we add to scripture, which I have seen Calvinists do to this verse to fit their predestination mold.// Any Calvinist that has to manipulate Scripture to fit into a predestination mold doesn't really know what he ought to know. I can guarantee you that there will be no Scripture manipulation by me. I will absolutely demand that you consider the context AND that you remember that one verse cannot contradict another. And if you're willing to abide by that, and if you're willing to participate, I'd like to challenge you to go through a study of Calvinism with me.

I know right?!

God created mankind with the ability to make decisions, He can, He is sovereign.

@@edelbertlitangan5780 agreed. the fact that we get to choose IS the Will of God.

@Jason Koemans Calvinism doesn't posit that God is any less sovereign for all man's decisions, as long as it's understood that nothing God does is ultimately dependent on man's decisions.

@@Henry._Jones Some of what God does IS dependent on man's decisions, but only because He has chosen for that to be the case, in His sovereignty.

I will pray 💙

Praying..

So yes we require that our theology be logically sound because, important note, if it literally doesn't make sense then you can't make any sense of it and you don't have a theology at all :-) Now on to your lack of honesty. Is Calvinism based on "a logical system of thought"? No. It is based on the bible and what it says. The clue is that it is a systematic theology not a philosophy 🙂 I think you must know this and are being dishonest, especially so because (by your own admission) you have been corrected many times. Is dishonesty, straw manning and refusing to be corrected by others about what they believe the right way for a Christian to behave? No, it is not. Let me tell you what your biggest problem is, sin. That's your biggest problem here too. Let's imagine you are an Arminian, and not a full on Pelagian, and clarify your position as indicated by your post. 1) You have a problem with logical systems of thought 2) You are so right that you know what people believe better than they do 3) You think arrogance and dishonesty are acceptable ways to behave 4) Your theology teaches that consistent wilful sin will make you unsaved 5) Only point 1 prevents the conclusion that you are going to hell But let's examine your theology and see why you might not like logical schools of thought. 1) You believe that Jesus bore the whole penalty for every sin for everyone that ever lived 2) That didn't fully atone for them and God requires something else in addition to that 3) What God requires is that they believe that this is true 4) If we don't believe it is true then even though it is true that Jesus paid the price for every single sin that anyone ever committed God will act like it isn't 5) God is truly just I can see why you might prefer illogical thought. If I'm wrong then there isn't any point telling me because it will be based on an illogical system of thought and therefore I won't be able to understand it. Mike's a good guy generally but on the Charismatic nonsense and his rejection of Reformed Theology he is hopeless.

@@Phill0old Arminianism is Diet Calvinism. Presenting it as the only real other choice outside of works based salvation is a false dichotomy. God draws all, all can reject God’s call, those that accept the call of God and place their faith in Christ and repent of their sins will find salvation. Faith is not a work. If you claim that unless God forces me to have faith then my faith is a work is not found in scripture. Faith in God is presented in scripture as the reason we can’t boast.

@@ChristianZangief I would never present it as a dichotomy because there is at least one other kind of semi Pelagian theology and full on Pelagianism. So it would be neither correct nor honest to do so. Since I'm a Christian honesty is important to me. You, on the other hand, present the idea that in Reformed theology faith is forced on people. Now that isn't true so either you don't know what you are talking about and should have kept quiet until you understood it you are not honest. Ignorance or dishonesty appear to be the only options here, unless you are insane? So which is it? Are you mad? Ignorant? Or a liar? For a proper understanding of how and why people are saved I refer readers to the Bible where they will find that people are chosen, selected and blessed by God in special ways and the rest are not so blessed but are left to their own desires.

@@ChristianZangief Just over tiny issue with the idea that God calls all. You didn't say what God calls all people to. You didn't explain why God calling them means that they can do what they are called to do or why they would be so inclined. Could you clear that up? Since you are stating that the Bible makes those claims it should be an easy thing....

@@Phill0old you’re claiming that in reformed theology the elect can choose not to be the elect? If not then their faith is forced on them from God. If so then they have freewill to reject God and some will. So which is it? God draws all to him but He allows us to either accept or reject his call. My phone can ring but I can choose not to answer it.

That's exactly how I see it. If I offered $100 to all who came to my house and only a few showed up that's the fault of the ones who missed out. The offer still stands. Just because they didn't believe doesn't mean I didn't offer.

The gift of God does not have to be actively received to take effect. It's more like a punch in the face, you just get it.

AMEN! I don't understand how something so simple is resulting in such confusion for many. I'm in shock by the Calvinistic view

You just gave an argument for Calvinism. The parable of Lazarus and the richman has two sides of hell "Abraham's bossom aka paradise Torment the richman's side" before the Gospel was confirmed. If all sin was paid for the wicked are set free. JESUS emptied only the paradise side of hell, the richman's side waits the lake of fire. Ps. 1 the wicked will not stand with the righteous on judment day because the believers sin have been erased and forgotten.

Those who do not believe are condemned already, not after they have been presented and reject the Gospel. Jesus died for all, but the payment is only applied to accounts of believers, otherwise everyone is saved. Therefore the atonement or the payment is only applicable to some accounts. And is therefore limited. This applies to all versions of Christ based salvation except universalism.

Calvanist are right to a point we are called according to his elect but then Jesus did not die for only elect or believers. Jesus died for non believes too . Redemption is a free gift but not everyone will receive it because there is a Satan seed which has been planted since long ago.

@@pskima4274so JESUS died and paid for the sins of satan's seed? Howabout the potter made some vessels to contain glory and some vessels were meant for destruction is HIS will? Knowing the end from the begining is part of HIS title Alpha and the Omega. HE planed for you before you were born and before the foundations of the earth were laid. ✝❤

Amen.

Does this mean that Calvinists are not saved? Are they not saved if they believe that?

@@williamgullett5911 no they are definitely saved. If you believe in Christ as your lord and savior and confess ur sins. U shall be saved. All the finer details about what u believe probly doesn’t affect ur salvation as much as it affects ur life on earth and what u do with it.

@@amandacarmel6084 As a newish 3 yr Christian I always had those things and will continue focusing on those things...then I started seeing these videos...and while it didn't change anything it muddied the waters. I know where my faith, my worship has to be...Jesus, the cross...His shed blood..Matthew 22:37...my heart is for GOD, not doctrines...although it makes me sad to see doctrinal debates..not because one side is right on an issue and one wrong..but because those debates divide Christians. Thank you for the response. GOD bless

If only you guys actually tried to read the Bible. Peter's first letter is clearly written to the Elect (1:2). It's obvious from 2Peter1 that some of his original readers were asking the question, "OK, so how do I know that I am included in that elect subset of humanity?" and Peter answers that question immediately as he clearly addresses his 2nd letter to "you" who want to know how "to make your calling and election sure." The "you" who "know and are established in the present truth." (v12) Those "who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ." Peter makes sure his readers know that when he talks about God's promises to "US" that they are included in the Elect people of God, marked by faith. When Peter speaks of *US*, he is speaking specifically of the Church. In chapters 2 and 3, Peter focuses on the contrast with *THEM* - the unbelievers like the false teachers and scoffers. And how the believers to whom he is writing need to ignore *THEM* because judgment is coming for *THEM* as from God's eternal viewpoint, they are just “beasts made to be caught and destroyed.” 4 For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to Hell and delivered *THEM* into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment; 5 and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly; 6 and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned *THEM* to destruction, making *THEM* an example to those who afterward would live ungodly; 7 and delivered righteous Lot, who was oppressed by the filthy conduct of the wicked 8 (for that righteous man, dwelling among *THEM*, tormented his righteous soul from day to day by seeing and hearing their lawless deeds)- 9 then the Lord knows how to deliver the godly out of temptations and to reserve the unjust under punishment for the day of judgment... There is no hint of God's love for *THEM* if you actually read Peter's whole letter. In Peter's first letter, you can see a focus on encouraging the Church as the members are dealing with persecution and suffering. Again, there is evidence that some of his original readers were following up and asking the question, "Thanks for the encouragement but what we really want to know is 'why can't Jesus just come back right now?' " When Peter addresses that question in v9 “The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward *US*, you guys are suddenly unable to read English at a 6th grade level. (Some manuscripts say "toward you" but it's still the same idea going back to chapter 1.) Around 29:40 and 29:57 in the video, “pastor” Mike demonstrates that he has never read actually Peter's second letter all the way through. Three whole chapters is too much for you guys - which really goes to show how little respect you all have for the Bible. He has no idea who that *US* / *YOU* could be...and proceeds to randomly conclude that maybe it means every single person in the world. Having read the rest of the letter, Calvinists think it means the Elect - all believers throughout space and time - but since Mike has never read Chapter 1, he has no idea who the *US* could be and he has never read the rest of Chapters 2 and 3 to see that if God were showing patience toward the unbelievers in v9, it would say He is longsuffering toward *THEM* (but again, if you actually read those chapters, they don't speak of God's love or patience at all - only judgment). And Peter isn't telling them that Jesus is delaying His 2nd coming just to bide time wishing and hoping - "14 Therefore, beloved, ...consider that the longsuffering of our Lord *IS* salvation." The elect are still being brought in through the door of faith, even into the 21st century. When the last believer on God's list comes through the door, Jesus will return but His delay is an absolute guarantee of salvation for His remaining People. But since you are not a Berean at all, you bought Mike's pile of crap without a second thought. If you have the Spirit, you should test what I am saying. And if you don't, well...judgment is coming for the fakers who care more about supporting their tribe than honoring the Scriptures.

Charles Kirby same!😂

Who picked the door and knocked? Who spoke to who? Who comes in? I'm guessing you missed the "I wills" in the verse?

@@rickhuntling7338 shut up you brainwashed calvinist. Stop saying God can act immorally to protect his sovereignty, not how that works. You people are insane

There are literally 100’s of verses in the overall Calvinist debate and this isn’t one of them. On the atonement there are a lot fewer and Mike covered a good many of them.

Er that passage is to a church. Does context mean nothing to you?

This was written to the 7 churches in Asia Minor. Audience relevance is important, which is often overlooked by non-calvinists.

2) FAITH BEING A WORK OR NOT A WORK To your point in the previous video of faith being seen as a work in the Calvinist view and therefore disproving Calvinism, I'm just not sure that matters. I will be the first to admit here that I have much to learn and am just beginning to jump more fully into this debate. I also acknowledge that you know much more than I do. However, I also acknowledge that the men who have most influenced me, such as John Piper, likely know much more than you and I put together. So, we are all, in our own unique way, devoid of knowledge and in a humble place. I think faith being a "work" or "not a work" is largely irrelevant to Calvinism as a whole and your point that therefore Calvinism must be untenable. I, of course, could be off here, but this is my current perspective. “Work” or not, as long as faith is produced in some sense by mankind, whether as a work or as mere mental assent and conviction or as a “choice” as you said, or as a kind of “workless action” (as you seem to define it), or whatever else you might want to call it, I just don't see how the distinction matters or how man could possibly produce faith - whatever it might be - by himself. Or, more importantly, the Bible, to my knowledge, gives no implication that man can produce faith in and of himself. It simply commands us to "have faith" and to "believe", which must either find its ultimate end or God or in man. There is simply no in-between. I know you affirm that God is the "end" of salvation and accomplishes it completely, yet you also seem to prescribe man as the "end" of the choice to have faith. I'm just not convinced you can have it both ways. And even in that explanation, synergism (defined simply as "to work together") seems simply inevitable. My core question for you might be this: Where does man's production of faith come from? I suppose you might say that we do not know that exactly, but that it is simply out of our will and that Scripture makes it clear. If faith, as Hebrews 11:1 says, is "assurance" and "conviction", both things that I would admittedly not consider a "work" (even though work must accompany faith), how does man produce those? How does man come up with the kind of assurance and conviction necessary to have faith in God in and of himself? I think the Bible is clear that we are not capable of this kind of production without the Spirit's power and I would want you, as a brother, to feel the assurance of your complete and final salvation for all eternity and not have to wrestle with any wrestling that you might have about the assurance of your salvation, as the Bible seems to desire for us. I think it safe to say from experience alone that man is not capable of producing definitively the kind of "assurance" and "conviction" necessary for the utter peace required for one to know they are saved every single day that they wake up until death does them part. Does man "choose" his faith at the beginning but then have to continue choosing it after that first moment, or does God takeover at that point? How does our "choosing" factor in after the initial moment of salvation? How does it factor in before and how much is up to God? My prayer would be that you might be able to answer these questions well and walk in the light of them as you impact others.

3) LIMITED ATONEMENT Lastly, you and I would certainly agree that not all people go to heaven, ie some people go to hell. And so, if you would agree with Strong's definition of atonement as "to cover over, pacify, make propitiation", ie that atonement is Jesus' blood and sacrifice covering over the sins of those who go to heaven, then you would surely agree that those in hell at the end of time have not had their sins covered over or atoned for in any kind of ultimate sense. Because, if they had, they would certainly not be in hell. And if you would agree that "limited" means some sense of "not everyone", then surely the definition of "limited atonement" as "covering over, pacifying, or making propitiation for the sins of some", from an end times perspective, would be agreeable to you. Otherwise, as James White said, I feel that you would have to be a universalist. And we both know you are not. Or, you would have to be an Arminian. And you do not define as such. Additionally, the Calvinists that I am aware of most certainly agree that Jesus died for the sins of all people in the sense that salvation is offered unequivocally to all people. He “paid” for the sins of all people in the sense that whoever comes in faith will have their sins paid for. We all agree on this, though our definitions of “faith” seem to be slightly different. And yet, as I mentioned, surely at the end of the age the sins of those in hell have not been paid for. You might say “they have been paid for, they just chose not to accept it.” If so, that unequivocally gives man a form of salvific determination and must be considered as such. The difference, to me, and I think to the Calvinist in general, is perspective. You and I do not know who is saved at the end of the age - ie, the elect - and who is not. Therefore, we must speak the gospel to all with the desire, and expectation, that they might respond. That they might “choose”. Calvinists, to my understanding, 100% believe in human free will and choice. Humans must choose God of their own will. But, as you said, a true Calvinist cannot say with certainty that "Jesus died for you" to an unbeliever (in one sense of the phrase!). How could we? How could you? You don't know if that person will be saved or not! You don't know if they will be in heaven or not. Yes, there is a sense in which Jesus died for them in that he has offered his salvation freely to them and, from our perspective, they very well might place their trust in him (via the work of the Spirit). However, we simply don't know how they will respond and so it would be taking the place of God to say that "Jesus died for them" because, in the Calvinist perspective, Jesus dying for someone = accomplishing their salvation, and I don't see how saying "Jesus died for you" can mean anything less. Jesus ultimately died to glorify God, not save sinners. We reap the benefits of this triune glorification. But we are not the focal point. I know you agree with that. Which leads into the fundamental problem that I believe you aren't grasping: God is not us. God does not have our perspective. From our perspective, yes, we choose. From our perspective, yes, we have free will. But that is not God’s perspective. At bare minimum, if he is indeed omniscient, he knows who is going to be saved at the end of time. At maximum, he has ordained/chosen who will be saved at the end of time. Surely if God knows who will be saved at the end of time, and surely if Jesus is God, which we both agree, then Jesus had to know exactly for whom he was dying on the cross in the sense of who would ultimately repent and believe. This would seem to indicate that, at the very minimum, Jesus knew who his sacrifice would atone for when he died, and that it would not be everyone, and at maximum that he chose/elected everyone who would believe on him before the foundation of the world and for whom his sacrifice would atone for. Additionally and finally, God most certainly desires all mankind to be saved. Scripture is clear on that. But it is also clear that not all men are. And so, as Piper has explained, there is a sense in which God has a will that trumps his other will, as you have certainly heard. In other words, his sovereign will will always trump his desired will in the same kind of way that a parent may not desire to discipline their child, however they will do so anyway because it is what is best. Or, on a positive note, a person might desire to do an action that would genuinely be helpful for them, such as reading a godly book, but they pick instead to go hangout with an unbelieving friend and share the gospel with them because they believe the latter to be the superior action for that moment. So it is with God, with the difference being between him and us that he always does what is correct and best, whether or not his very human-like desires align perfectly with it or not. Because, even in your belief system, you would agree that God's desires are not always met. I think you may have heard these arguments, but I have not heard you address them and would be curious for you to do so. Those are my current qualms and thoughts, even though there is so much more that I would like to say even than I already did (believe it or not). Perhaps we could chat about it in person one day. Part of my concern is that others might be led astray by some of this thinking and away from biblical doctrine. I recognize that you are doing your absolute best to not do that and think that Calvinism itself actually succeeds in leading people away from true biblical doctrine in these areas. But know that I, that James White, that other reformed Believers, have the same concern for you. I would be happy to know your thoughts if able. Much love from a fellow traveler on the journey, Ryan

Amen!

And by doing so they committed the sin of blaspheming the spirit which Jesus didn't pay for. Amen

I don't think White has ever admitted he might be wrong about ANYTHING.

This I agree. Calvinism says (afaik) God has chosen people from the beginning who will be saved and who will be damned; thus our fate is sealed whether we're saved or damned. This interpretation is hilariously wrong. A more accurate understanding would be God chose to save those who would choose to be saved. Jesus knocks on our doors; we can choose to let Him in or not (Rev 3:20).

As you consider calvinism think about some of the contradictions and double talk present in this theology - God decrees all evil - God "restrains" the evil he decrees - all doesn't mean all, everyone doesn't mean everyone and the whole world doesn't mean whole world - faith is a work if not effectually given - admitting your a sinner in need of grace = earning your own salvation - God must condemn to hell most babies in the womb in order to show his justice These facts of calvinism are opposed to what we're taught in scripture. God desires all to be saved and come to the knowledge of him. God does not need to decree every action and thought of every man to be sovereign and in control.

@@coryalbright9798 I’m Lutheran now. :)

@@1920s 😃

@@1920s check out dr gene Kim and Robert breaker

@@1920s Isn't lutheran also "reformed" and wrong in many of the same ways that Calvinism is?

If you cared about the Bible instead of your philosophical constructs, you would have had questions at around 29:40 in the video when Mike pondered confusedly that when God is being patient toward "*YOU*" in 2Peter3:9, Calvinists teach that Peter is speaking of the Elect but he waves his hands and poo-poos such a notion. Where could that crazy idea come from? Bereans who actually read the rest of 2 Peter might point to chapter 1: 10 Therefore, *BROTHERS*, be all the more diligent to confirm *YOUR* calling and election. Peter is writing to the Elect (just as He did in his first letter - 1Peter1:1). Who besides the “Elect” would be interested in confirming their “election?” This is not complicated. Peter is telling the family of God that God is being patient for their sake in delaying Jesus' return. Peter has just spent a chapter and a half railing against *THEM* (the unbelievers) to warn the Elect about listening to them and falling for their crap. 2Peter is a riff on Psalm 73, which also recommends taking the longer view instead of envying the wicked, who often seem insulated from the persecution and suffering that Peter's readers were dealing with. If 2Peter3:9 were speaking from a human point of view, Peter would have said that Jesus has not returned because God is being patient with *THEM*. But it doesn't, because Peter doesn't ever ever ever speak of God's love for "them" in his letter. Speaking from God's eternal viewpoint, Peter only repeats the point that judgment is coming for *THEM* - to God, *THEY* are only like wild animals, born to be caught and destroyed - as Peter is warning the Elect (*YOU*) in his letter to avoid being misled or discouraged by *THEM.* So 2Peter3:9 is just reminding Christians who are suffering that Jesus' delay is only motivated by His love for all of His people, including those who have not been born or accepted Him within space and time. He will return when the last of His sheep have come to faith. As 2Peter3:15 says, "count the patience of our Lord as salvation." Not the optimistic hopes of maybes and possibilities but as Jesus securing the actual salvation of His sheep, whom He knows by name.

👏

@@BloodBoughtMinistries in one of his debates (white) he told God would be lacking something if he would want to save everyone but couldn't in reality, therefore he have to predestine everything so he keeps his sovereignity. It's like demanding something of God so he can be your God.

While ‘WE’ were still weak.... who are the WE? Those justified by faith 5:1.... context is important and following Paul’s argument gives clarity.

Michael Borg Christ died for the ungodly, which is literally everyone.

Christ died for His sheep john 10. But they were ungodly that's why we need His blood. Now go read john 10 very carefully and listen as Jesus clearly tells some jews He is laying His life down for His sheep and that they are not His sheep... Ie He is not giving His life for them. We can fit all scriptures in their original language into our understanding you can not but must ignore some. So 😥

Joe Roubidoux, great idea! Mike, what about it?

Joe Roubidoux he’s already doing so much. One of us should transcribe it into a PDF.

I am doing one run. It will be out today or tomorrow

Lol right!

@@hotsauce4dayz222 let me know what you got.

Justin Harrell I could agree with most of that. I personally can’t say all the way only because I never actually met a real Calvinist/cessationist/reformer in real life yet. Hard to believe I know, but I only know of them through RU-vid so far.

@@tarikR.R.5120 Yes I can believe because first contact for me was decades after being a Christian.

Justin Harrell Yes Justin. If Calvinism is true and God predestined people to go to Hell, that makes God a monster.

@justin harrell I can, in love and concern, reverse everything you've said: "I can stay calm about Arminianism on paper, but when I see some of the ways it destroys people I know, work with, or live with....then I get passionate against it. Well...after further thought(lol), I also get passionate when I think about how Arminianism ruins the character of God made plain in scripture." Saying that about Calvinism -- or Arminianism -- is a blanket statement that needs justification. There are saved, growing, mature, Calvinists and Arminians out there. To say otherwise, without proof is unloving, judgmental, and illogical -- it's a straw man....and it's offensive. Most of the people I know are Arminian, while I am a five-point Calvinist. I see so many Arminians struggle about knowing whether they are saved or if they have lost their salvation. I grew up as a "five-point Arminian" and struggled with assurance. It scared me to death. When I would read 1 John 5:13 or Hebrews 6 (especially vv. 3-6), I wondered how I could know if I was really saved, since I believed I could lose my salvation -- and possibly never get it back. I also saw that it was utterly inconsistent to pray for somebody else's salvation if God did not intervene against somebody's free will, being an Arminian, at the time. On top of that, as an Arminian, I always worried that when I witnessed to somebody, that if I mess it up or was a bad witness at the moment or don't say the right words, I could be guilty of causing the other person to be less likely to believe in Jesus. For me and countless others, Arminianism is fear about salvation (my own and to those I witness to), not assurance. After searching the Scriptures and praying for myself, I saw that I was the one who was wrong. It started with understanding that the Scripture teaches assurance of salvation and that you cannot lose it -- but only if you're actually saved in the first place. At that point, I re-read 1 John 5:13, Hebrews 6, Romans 7-9, Ephesians, and Galatians. The book of John -- election is everywhere, along with assurance that you are saved (or that you are lost). Now, I witness, when I get the chance and pray for them harder, believing that God commands us to preach/teach the Gospel and that He "gives the increase," calls the elect, and is able to save people, in spite of me. Now, I should always be "ready to give an account" (1 Peter 3:15) and I strive to witness through my life, as well. Several years later, as a "five-point Calvinist," I have assurance of my salvation in Christ, I love both Calvinist and Arminian brothers and sisters in Christ, I worry less about witnessing, and I am growing like never before. My Bible reading and prayer are far more consistent. I love Jesus. So, has Calvinism "destroyed" me? That silly idea is utterly false. I can also reverse it, too, and show you brothers and sisters in Christ who are Arminian. Being a non-Christian "Arminian" or "Calvinist" will destroy you, though. That person gets an extra bad place in Hell, for eternity -- not because of those beliefs, but because they sat under the teachings of Scripture, time after time after time and still rejected Christ. Being a Christian "Arminian" or "Calvinist" who lacks growth will destroy you, as well. I saw Mike Winger's video but disagree with it in some areas -- and it's fine. As a 5 point Calvinist, I truly believe Mike W is a born-again believer. I like his ministry, and have both been edified by it, and have shared some of his videos. I love his attitude and his love for the Church -- Arminians, Calvinists, or other. If we get nothing else out of his video, we should take his example of living out the fruit of the Spirit and do likewise. I am also a fan of James White. It's so awesome that these two can sit down and love each other, just as Christ loves the Church. It's OK to have a heated debate about beliefs, in the Church -- "iron sharpens iron." Taking cheap pot shots against fellow believers is forbidden in Scripture. That's why blanket statements about "A's" or "C's" are so wrong. 'In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.' -- Augustine Mark 1:15 is true for "A's" and for "C's": “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel (ESV).”

@@helicam1234 Firstly, I am not Arminian. Secondly, I only took "pot shots" at a system..not the people...at least that was my intent. Lastly, I am sorry you had to write all that ;) I think both systems have flaws because I don't see them portrayed by the whole of scripture.

Christ died for all sins, but sin and free will come into play. The gift of salvation is available to everyone and is stayed as such in the Bible many times over.

What a wonderful comment. I disagree with your apparent theology. Nevertheless your gracious comment recognizing we are all brothers in Christ is evidence of the peace of Christ!

Chris Holman I completely agree. however, even Jehovah Witnesses will say exactly what you’re saying in order to state what they say is true...Regardless of their teachings being from the Watch Tower.

@@defiance1790 First thing, I apologize for the novel, bare with me for a moment. That is a good point. I have learned that when I need to find the truth in the Word of God that I should ask myself a set of questions and find the answers to those questions. That being: 1. Who wrote it 2. Who was it written to 3. What is the subject being discussed. 4. What did it mean at the time it was written and it's relevance at that time. 5. How is it then relevant to us today. If I can accurately answer these questions I will find the truth in His word. There is a term for this process, it's call Exegesis. At this point this has become natural for me to do. One should never attempt to apply a modern interpretation to Scripture written thousands of years ago that it could not possibly mean. What matters is what the Scripture meant when it was written. Groups like Jehovah Witnesses could not arrive at the conclusions that they do if they applied proper Exegesis. An example of Scripture missused and misinterpreted is Psalm 105:15, also found in 1st Chronicles 16. "Touch not my annointed..." Many use this Scripture to mean "never question or challenge your pastor." If your Pastor says this immediately get up and leave, he will be a controlling Pastor setting himself up as the center of a cult of personality. What this Scripture was referring to as the "annointed" is God's chosen people as a whole. We are now grafted into the vine. So the relevance to us today is that we as children of God fall under His protection. Another example is Isaiah 14:12 but that is a very long topic on it's own. One thing I would like to note is the phenomenon of Linguistic Drift. The meaning of words change over time that is why I believe, and many agree with me, that it is important to look at the root Greek and Hebrew as well as the meaning of the words chosen at the time the Bible was translated into that edition. Many words found in the KJV are no longer used outside of the KJV so many people have no idea what they mean, particularly new Christians and non believers. In my opinion most Scripture does not require to be dissected like this, they are quite clear on what is being said. I hope this helps and further clarifies what I was trying to say. God Bless!

@@exploringtheologychannel1697 Exactly! In addition to diligently searching for truth we must all have civil dialogue as well. A true seeker of truth will be willing to admit when they have been proven wrong and accept the truth as it has been revealed. I admit that at one time in my life I did not do this. God Bless!

Chris Holman it not only clarifies, it helped to put some of my loose thoughts into a more structured mindset. Thank you 👍

@@defiance1790 You are quite welcome Brother!