Dr Leighton Flowers, Director of Evangelism and Apologetics for Texas Baptists, briefly discusses John Piper's Calvinistic view that God has two wills. You can view the full video here: • Is John Piper Correct ...
"... without this category of thought, I don't think you can make sense out of the bible or the God of the Bible..." Actually, if you'd let go of the category of thought called Calvinism, the Bible's not nearly as difficult...
@@Drspeiser So that’s my question! How it’s supposed to be if “Calvinism” is wrong? We not sinful, God don’t have free will, we can preserve ourselves and don’t need his help and Christ death is not enough?
@@primeobjective5469 how about: “Well MY Bible say....” or “I’m just following scripture..” or the best.... Quote a bunch of scripture about false teachings and deceptions.. then act like this is an argument..😬
Why do they not get that prophecy fulfilled is the testimony of Christ. God is not decreeing a doctrine that applies to anyone else when He brings His spoken word to pass. That He uses men whose hearts were ALREADY deceitful and desparately wicked to do so, is not that hard to understand.
Right! All He needs is to pick an already-willing participant, from the many already available. And He could insure, by foreknowledge, that this person is someone who would never repent, and maybe even pick someone who was already worse than most others, if not everyone else, and already willing to piously play the part of a believer, while not believing a bit.
If GOD decrees us to sin, then GOD is unjust if we are held accountable for sin. It is not that hard. I don't understand why Calvinists cannot see this.
And conversely, if God irresistibly compels those to love him, who of their own will would reject him, then the "love" of god is indistinguishable from rape.
@@VicRibeiro777 few Calvinists believe in hard determinism/fatalism, I believe men sinned by free choice after sinning they lost the ability to choose God because of separation from God (is59v2) the will of man was bound to sin until God in grace stepped in, at Calvary he bought an elect people the ‘whosoever’ of John 3v16, and leaving the rest in their sin to their just condemnation. People find this scary because it’s outside of our control, but as Luther said ‘is it not wonderful to believe that salvation lies outside of ourselves?’
What I find scary is that God can say one thing under Calvinism and mean another. How do you reconcile this... that when God says he doesn’t want any person to perish but rather repent, he didn’t really mean that, because he didn’t make it possible for the “non elect” people to repent ....
"But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ For whatever is more than these is from God." Matthew 5:37 NCV The Calvinist god is a schizophrenic, a double-minded god, unstable in all his ways.
There is plenty of duplicitousness in "God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." and yet also believing "God secretly, salvifically loves the elect according to Calvinism and hates the rest of mankind."
@@spacebbq344 Yes I agree He has graciously provided us explanation through His Word. And the explanation is not Calvinism but the exact opposite. Here is God’s revealed Word that He has graciously provided: 1 THESSALONIANS 4:2-3 2 For ye know what commandments we gave you by the Lord Jesus. 3 FOR THIS IS THE WILL OF GOD, even your sanctification, that ye should 👉abstain👈 from fornication: 4 That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour; Q: Are God’s decrees and everything He’s predestined including all evil and fornication the will of God? If God has ordained whatsoever comes to pass, including all fornication, then why does Paul say in 1 THESSALONIANS 4:2-3 that the will of God is to ABSTAIN from fornication and not to commit it? The will of God is to ABSTAIN from fornication as explicitly stated. Therefore if someone commits fornication then that was NOT the will of God. Not His prescriptive will and not His decretive will and not any other kind of will you want to make up. NOT His will at all. He explicitly states His will IS to abstain from fornication. That’s His REVEALED will. The one He’s TOLD us. In Reformed theology God is in fact duplicitous and made out to be a liar in that they would say if you commit fornication then it is the will of God because He’s ordained everything.
If God has these two wills, his hidden/internal/sovereign will and his external/prescriptive/moral will, and if His sovereign will decrees "whatsoever comes to pass" (as the Westminster Confession puts it) then when it comes to human sin it seems that God's moral will must literally HATE his sovereign will, making for a very odd tension, a volitional dissonance, within God.
@@victorvarnak1645 The fact that you don't know God's character and don't know how He could think, do not know His will which he revealed to us in Christ Jesus, means you don't have the mind of Christ or the Holy Spirit. It's not a mystery when you have the spirit of God living inside you. The Bible says these are the things that must be spiritually discerned and if you cannot discern them correctly, it's because you don't have the Spirit discerning it for you and witnessing to your spirit. You need to get saved, bro.
I remember when a calvinist in her 20's told me straight that God has two wills. I had never heard that before, but I did guess correctly what famous pastor she learnt that from.
I was a five point Calvinist for more than ten years. What pushed me away was this doctrine that claims that God wills the sexual abuse of children. It’s blasphemy. Young Calvinists will dismiss this as hyper Calvinism. The truth is, that is the inevitable end of Calvinistic philosophy. They just have not been far enough down the doctrinal path yet.
oh yes i have always said if Calvinists actually sit and confront their doctrines with a fair and open mind and with he guidance of scripture, they will see how the teachings make no sense. like you said, did God will Hitler to kill 6 million Jews?
@@Mattissaved no he’s saying that under a deterministic view of God; God actually decrees/causes the acts of evil. Under a non-deterministic view, God allows humans to make choices and thus evil occurs. Also you can’t have your cake and eat it too. You can’t on the one hand claim that God causes all things that come to pass and then on the other hand claim that he’s not responsible for evil or sin.
@@Mattissaved You’re free to claim anything you want. But your statement is not consistent. God cannot cause all things to come to pass and not be the author of evil at the same time. Either he causes all things or he doesn’t. If he does, then he causes evil as well. This statement or claim in the WCF is called special pleading. I won’t respond further.
@@Mattissaved wow, you are really good at taking verses out of context and not understanding what they say. It's like your brain is broken. I mean, the proof texts you presented literally hurt your argument if you understand what they say and don't assert a meaning into them which isn't there. It's really astonishing that you could say so much and still be completely wrong. All of these proof texts really quite simply say that God is the light the good which makes us aware of the dark and the evil. And that is literally how God is represented over and over and over throughout scripture.
Exactly: God using what exists (rebellion) to bring about redemption. God doesn't cause everything, but uses somethings. Calvinis don't seem to understand the difference between God's will as distinct from God's desires. Often they seem to argue that all of His desires are all of His will. Evidence from scripture indicates His will is His desires, but all of His desires are not of His will. He desires our obedience, but wills our choice.
@4:25 God does not predetermine evil things to be. James 1:12-15 "12 Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him. 13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: 14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. 15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death." God did not cause the sin. Follow it backwards. Verse 15, sin was brought forth by lust. Verse 14, lust draws the man into the temptation. Verse 14 also shows "of HIS OWN lust". Not God's, but man's. In verse 13, "Let no man say... I am tempted of God: for God CANNOT be tempted with evil, NEITHER tempteth He any man". The Bible very clearly points out that evil and sin does not come from God. Also, they use a very poor example in Christ's crucifixion. Matthew 27:50 "Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost." The word "yielded" there is "to send away, permit". There's a lot on that though, enough that I won't include it in this post and let you go look at it yourself. First time watching a video here. One of the assistant preachers mentioned this channel and that I should check it out. Enjoyed this video and I think you did a great job, minus backing thoughts up with scriptures, but I figure that's because you were trying to limit the amount of time spent in the video.
"That in one sense something is the will of God and in another sense that same something is not the will of God. Without this category of thought I don't think you can make sense out of the bible... the God of the bible" As usual you can see how confused John Piper is over this. God is not the author of confusion though so Piper is once again way off target. I pray this man gets set free from the stronghold of Calvinism before it's too late.
I'm really concerned that John Piper's schizophrenic, two-willed, double-minded God won't be able to hold his kingdom together: Didn't someone once say, “Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand”?
You have to take to consideration your IQ level before labelling someone else who’s been known for decades as best Christian scholar, teacher, pastor and chancellor on Anglo-American ground and beyond! You just nobody who also happens to be dumb! :)
So.....calvinists propose that God wants our yes to be yes, and our no to be no, but Gods' yes may mean no and His no might be yes? Alright. So the calvinist God IS a God of confusion. Got it. Run, saints, from these lies.
Dr. Flowers, can you make an Essentials playlist to really help people come out of Calvinism. Like your top ten videos that they should watch. Thank you for consideration.
The more I listen to Piper and other Calvinists, the more I believe these doctrines are heresy and rooted in Man's mind and heart. The Bible says there is nothing good in men's hearts. I rest my case. The church of the 21st century need a deformation from the REFORMATION that has left million of souls confused and searching for the truth of the simple Gospel: John 3:16! God save us from these false teachers.
I agree with your teaching and understanding of God's Sovereignty, God is Sovereign simply stated means that GOD can do whatever He wants however He wants whenever He wants and No can stop Him.
"Sovereign" does not mean... "God in controlling every humans will for his glory and therefore, man does not ultimately have free will." Calvinists always use the word "Sovereign" like that.
It would be more precise to say - on that system - man does not have Libertarian free will. But man would have compatibilistic free will - which is the same free will that robots have. :-]
In this verse that I'm sure the Calvinist will retranslate, will is in the singular form. Romans 12:2 "And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God."
Nowhere in the scriptures is it mentioned that God has 2 wills. The Reformed always mention the case of Christ that God did not want the people to sin by killing an innocent but he decreed it. When the truth is that God wanted Christ to die and there is no incompatibility and contradiction in which those responsible for Christ's death would be judged for it, in fact throughout the scripture it is mentioned that God uses the sin of people to lead to carry out his purposes and make a profit (for example, the case of Joseph when he was sold by deceit to the Egyptians), there is no incompatibility in affirming: a) God wanted Jesus to die, but he did not pronounce himself out of wanting the people to sin by giving an innocent man to death; In other words, I can want someone to die but I can keep silent if they ask me whether or not I want "x" person to kill that person I want to die. Returned, there is no incompatibility. And I say this and I believe it because I do not believe that God contradicts and opposes himself with 2 wills. In the same way when God commanded the People of Israel not to marry people who were not his people, the Bible says that it was the will that God marry a Philistine. Contradiction? Double will of God? No. What happens is that just as God commands "not to kill" there are cases in which this does not apply or is valid since a purpose underlies it, for example the case in which the Israeli soldiers had to fight in the Wars, there the "you shall not kill" did not apply, it did not exist, it was not demanded. It is not difficult to understand it, in all the "apparent contradictions" where the Reformed indicate "a double will" the text must always be analyzed and see that behind it there is an underlying purpose of God and there can never be a contradiction. And back, there is no contradiction when affirming that God wanted and determined that Jesus died and then judged those guilty of killing him, this is part of the mystery of God and his infinite wisdom, but in no way is it "a double will". Another thing also happens in 2 Thessalonians when it affirms that God sends a deceptive power for those who reject the gospel and the truth, does not God want everyone to be saved and does the opposite? Well there the truth is that those people rejected the gospel, it was presented to them, it was not that God acted out of nowhere by sending them the deceptive power, of course not, the consequences were after rejecting the gospel, God acts against what Once he wanted to fulfill a requirement that in the case mentioned in 2 Thessalonians was to reject the gospel. That is, God wants everyone to be saved, yes, but he can act against it once he rejects it. It is not difficult to understand. In the same way God puts in the hearts of people to do wrong in Revelation 17:17 as consequences of their wicked and evil heart, but he never does it because yes, it is always a consequence of something, otherwise we would be saying that God tempts and is the author of sin, which is false. Reformed propositions and statements are very far-fetched and subtle, which is why many believe in it, but when one begins to investigate and work, he realizes the fallacies that exist in them.
Why would Calvinists assume because certain things God decrees will for certain happen, that means he decrees every single thing to happen? It's asinine.
Yep then claims the glory. He also causes sinners to sin that ends with them being thrown into the lake of fire and he (little h) gets even more glory. Calvinism is another gospel, have nothing to do with them.
Well said Chris! And in Calvinism - the idea that god prevents events from coming to pass is nothing more than a FACADE. There is actually no such thing as divine prevention in Calvinism. The only way the Calvinist can have it - is to create a predetermined SIMULATION of it. So divine prevention in Calvinism takes on the form of a VIRTUAL reality.
He's trying to explain things without Free Will. Plug in free will it falls into place and God isn't confused as he portrays. The sad thing is that there are people who actually listen to him and believe what he says. No critical thinkers anymore or Discernment
Why is it so stinking hard to find good non-Calvinist preachers on the web that aren't NAR, WOF, charismatic, or whatever other bologna there is out there?
I agree with Leighton God's Sovereignty belongs to HIM alone, man is not sovereign, will we're on the subject America is not sovereign. I would never phase anything the way Piper does. He's about to change every conjunction to connect his thoughts. Wow.
When you think about it, Calvinism to the average person is really confusing. A normal response to Calvinism is "so, God doesn't desire I sin and gives me a choice, but then predestined to sin anyway, huh, I'm so confused, Christianity is tough and illogical, I'd rather become a Buddhist" I mean really, Calvinism is so off putting and doesn't makes sense.
Just wanted to comment that I like your guidelines for making comments 🙏 I do disagree with you though. I think there is a simple misunderstanding in how calvinists define wills and the categories of them. Sproul has a great video about the *3* wills of God. What He wills into being (creation), what He wills as commands (thou shall not) and what He wills as desires (that all men do not perish). RC ofc has fancy biblical terms for these but I don’t remember what they are. Cheers, mate 🙏 thanks for the vid.
Yes. God has used sin filled men to accomplish His purposes. He never causes the sin. Through the cross, He brilliantly took advantage of rebellious humans to pay the dept of they're rebelliousness.
Why oh why do Mormons, JWs and Calvinists not want to become Christians? They just argue and argue! Yet they all read their twisted truth out of the same Bible where the gospel of salvation is clear as crystal! They don't really want the truth, they love the lie and so have no hope of coming into a relationship with Jesus with that mind set. Its so sad for them, but even sadder for those they cripple and hinder. They already wear the millstone around their necks. Its so evident to a child of God listening to them, but once again the destruction they do is unmeasurable!
The stumbling block for Calvinists here is their denial of man’s free will… every sin is a deliberate choice, including unconscious sin (Lev 5:17-19)… Even when the believer sins, it is always a deliberate decision of his/her part… God is never remotely a causative agent… it is our unregenerate flesh under the influence of the enemy & this world that is the causative agent…
Somehow they believe that mankind cannot be made in the image of God, of which a relative free will is part. Once Adam disobeyed and sin spread to all humanity, they assume that man is totally depraved to where no good thing is possible from man's will alone. Reality reveals a different story. You are right.
Actually I do not even think you can make the case that God specifically decreed the crucifixion. Ac 2:23 says that Jesus "was delivered up by God’s set plan and foreknowledge..." This means that God decreed that Jesus be HANDED OVER or GIVEN OVER to sinful men, and God foreknew that these sinful men would crucify Jesus. But God did not actually decree the crucifixion itself, it was purely the choice of sinful men. As Peter continues in Ac 2:23 "...and YOU, by the hands of the lawless, put Him to death by nailing Him to the cross."
The Godhead is one unity. It has one will shared by the 3 persons of the trinity. God did not kill the son. Before the foundation of the world, in the Divine Council, God chose to lay down his life. He had to enter the world to do this. Jesus is God. God in Christ came to bring salvation to us. So much more to be said.
@@abashedsanctimony154 Thanks. Also, during the day I mostly comment from my phone, because I don't have comment availability at work. So there is no telling what my thumbs mess up during that time. At night on the real computer, I can type normally. :)
Actually, you might wanna look at John Piper’s message on Romans 11: 7-10. It’s entitled “The Elect Obtained it But the Rest were Hardened.” Also his sermon from Romans 9:17-18 entitled “The Hardening of Pharaoh and the Hope of the World” also deals somewhat with the topic. Both sermons deal in some depth with how Calvinists understand the method in which God hardens hearts. It’s important to note that both Calvinists and Arminians believe that God hardens hearts. It’s a biblical doctrine. But they disagree on how and why God does that. I think the Bible is extremely clear that God isn’t just running around hardening people against the very Gospel He has commanded the church to preach to all nations. And Piper’s notion of Two Wills in God is crazy. But just thought that if you were actually interested in the Calvinist doctrine of Hardening, that those two sermons might interest you.
I think something like the two wills of God holds for free will believers two, because God wills that man does right but also wills that man has free will he can use to do wrong. But this I think doesn't get into the self contradiction of Calvinism's two wills of God.
Curious how Calvinists explain the Hebrew word Pen (H6435 in Strong's)? Particularly...Exodus 13:17 - Now when Pharaoh had let the people go, God did not lead them by the way of the land of the Philistines, even though it was near; for God said, “The people might change their minds when they see war, and return to Egypt.” God indicates two things here (and in over 100 hundred other verses using the same Hebrew word)... 1. That man "MIGHT" do something...God is Sovereign, I think we'd all agree with that. However, it would seem logical that an all knowing God would know the choice the man is going to make yet still be able to indicate here that man hadn't yet made the choice. In other words...God knew that the people would or would not return to Egypt but he also indicates they hadn't decided yet...seems pretty obvious to me that an option existed. 2. He also said they might CHANGE their minds...again, if God created everyone to be robots and we don't have the ability to make decisions and change our own mind about things, then why does God indicate these sort of things time and time and time again? Free Will and Sovereignty are actually quite simple if you just take a step back and think about it. The enemy has deceived our Calvinist brothers... John 5:39-40 - "You examine the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is those very Scriptures that testify about Me; 40 and yet you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life. Matt 23:37 - "How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling... Poor Paul, bless his heart...turned his back on everything he ever believed...lost his family all his friends, was beaten and left for dead evangelizing a message that people couldn't believe even if they wanted to. Last thing...If God knows everything, and He does...you're gonna tell me He knew Israel would rebel and made a promise to them anyway? No way...
Doesn't everybody have two wills? We will things in the sense that we require things from others, or we wish things from other. God has a moral will that's like this. But we also will things in the sense of activating our own faculty of volition. We will things in the sense of exerting our wills to accomplish something. God has a sovereign will that's like this. These wills are not the same. God has a moral will that we behave in certain ways, but God doesn't bring it about by his sovereign will that we do those things. Otherwise, we'd all be morally perfect. But the scripture are also clear that God does whatever he wants. That's his sovereign will. If God's sovereign will and moral will were the same thing, then there wouldn't be any sin. But there is sin, so his sovereign will and moral will cannot be the same thing.
What is your definition of "will"? Notwithstanding your comments, I surmise the following; As far as I know, everybody has only one center of personality from which comes their will. I feel God has only one will, a Holy will, and exercises it towards creatures differing by decision and circumstance. At no time is God's will at odds with his holy nature, nor do his allowances ever conflict. God is the supreme authority (since he is the creator) and by that fact he's sovereign. When he applies his desires to an end, nothing/noone can countermand. I don't call this his sovereign will, but exercising his rights of sovereignty. I don't see that God always applies his rights of sovereignty toward everything at all times. I don't think he needs to, in order to be God or to have final say. If we divide God's will into two wills, sovereign and moral, then how about adding his prescriptive will, or his permissive will. That's 3 if not 4 wills. There's a will that needs naming for nearly every situation in reality. I'd like to suggest God has one most Holy will, that's it. His commands, his permissions, his actions all come from one divine will. The expression of which I feel needs a better nomenclature than "this will or that will". Of course, my definition of will may be faulty. Corrections encouraged.
I've heard it taught that God has His perfect Will and His allowable Will. However; I could not speak in such a way a John Piper. Honestly it is hard for me to relate God to Calvinism. It's hard to see that God created us (humanity) and simply selected the majority of us for hell. I believe in God's Sovereignty and our free will to choose whether we believe God about His Son Jesus Christ for our salvation. My mind refers to the initial sin of Lucifer and the rebellion against God, it was a choice to try and overthrow God. And I'm reminded of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden, it was a choice that Adam and Eve choose to eat of the forbidden tree of good and evil.
God has only one will. According to this one will, he decrees certain things that he shall accomplish. And according to this same one will, he commands that we should not do certain things- though he does not determine by his will which choice we shall make. Jesus has two wills, in that he is both God and man.
It’s simple this allows for the double mindedness of if a rape occurs god ordained it, if it didn’t god ordained it. It is on paper a win win but in practice it’s devastating to anyone trying to even consider what god desires. As god is merciful and just but he has an obvious bias. So there is conflict but not contradiction. We need this theologigicallu so god can be grieved, angered, rightfully appalled when a rape occurs rather than PLEASED. No not us people, GOD ALMIGHTY. God,... let us cry it out loud... NOT PLEASED with such things. And that makes more sense that anything piper conjured here
Based on the information brought in this video, I see that the issue isn't in approaching God's will from two different perspectives, but rather, the problem is in saying that one of God's will (the sovereign will) is God causing things to happen. I do believe it's reasonable to identify God's only will from two different perspectives/approaches (Deut. 29:29), but to say that God's internal will is God causing everything He wants, is incorrect, as Leighton explains. God (the Father) knows the exact time and date of judgment day for example, and no one else knows it, so God, in His wisdom, has a predetermined date for such event, and our will cannot influence it. God's revealed will is man's will joining in cooperation with God's sovereign will. God's sovereign will comes to pass through man's will, but does not cause it. In the manner I explained it, which is how I understood this when I first learned it, I see no biblical problem at all. So I don't think rejecting "God's two wills" is necessary. What I do think is necessary, is rejecting divine - determinism.
Anyone who says Jesus's death or work on the cross is an evil thing is extremely mistaken, to use that as the example for God to do evil is misguided. The Bible clearly gives the message over and over again that Jesus sacrifice is a GOOD & LOVING thing, perhaps the greatest GOOD or LOVING thing ever. Also Jesus said that NO ONE takes his life from him but he chose to die. The Father did not murder His Son.
God does NOT redeem SIN. He redeems the SINNER. Please Don't say God redeems sin HE hates SIN and always hates sin. God redeems Man who is made in HIs image. Man is redeemed FROM sin. Sin is not redeemed. Please be clear.
Isn’t the problem then that you’re left with purposeless evil? That God knowing all that would take place from the creation of the world, and having all power to stop evil, being perfectly good and Holy, and then allowing horrible things that He doesn’t want to take place, to happen anyways? How does that work, because I just don’t see it. Perhaps since none of us are God we will just simply never understand.
Jesus said the enemy comes but to kill, steal and destroy. As much as we don't like it, this is a purpose, just not from God. Evil does have its own purpose and fallen angels agree. God understands that by making man in his own image that he is giving humans relative free will which includes the ability to make poor decisions, the ability to fall away and produce evil and the ability to be a victim. As the evil piles up against the doer, its cup rises towards full, fully ready and deserving of the judgement, wrath and punishment of God. Nobody is getting away with anything. God is not stupid. In light of that, the victims of evil will receive eternal recompense far beyond the damage done, your mind and spirit is cleared of any emotional damage and freshly reset. You'll have your memories but those will fade into nothing as you embrace a new eternity, a fabulous new life. God, in his wisdom, can use the events of evil to further a cause of good. Good results from bad events come when people run toward God and not away, when they more heavily depend on God and not less, when they seek him more and are patient, in the mist of suffering and pain. This will be to your credit, eternal credit. Life is not easy and it certainly doesn't appear fair, but the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are traveling that hard road with you, won't forsake you and, in my experience, make themselves available as you press harder onto them. We are all in the same boat together. Let's paddle towards heaven.
Leighton would be nice if you went and finished the debate between Slick and McGrew. McGrew systematically and more importantly graciously, dismantled his position on TD. I would encourage anyone looking to debate to not use the moderator. He was waaaaay too pro-Calvinist and not objective at all. Amateur at best.
I was a little surprised when the moderator chipped in to support Matt Slick to get '3' spiritual things that carnal people can't understand / receive. This in spite of Warren repeatedly saying that there's nothing spiritual that the carnal man can understand / receive
Couldn’t wait to see this video. I read his article on the Two Wills of God years ago and thought it was crazy then. I still do. Great video. Couple suggestions: 1. Lose the whole Undercover Cop example. I get your point. But Piper gave Bible example after Bible example in his article to make his point. The Cop example doesn’t really describe God very well at all. But there are plenty of Bible examples that certainly do make your point. And 2. Deal more with Piper’s argument. It’s a very unusual Calvinist argument. In the article, he introduces this dichotomy between God’s Sovereign Will and His Permissive Will by contrasting “Divine Election” with “God’s Desire for All to be Saved.” In essence, it’s his attempt to convince Arminians that his interpretation of election (a sovereign election of some people to salvation) is not incompatible with verses like 1 Tim. 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9, and Ezekiel 18:23 which affirms God’s will that all be saved. Now, of course, he hedges for his Calvinist readers. He admits that those verses, once looked at carefully, might not really reflect God’s actual desire for all to be saved (that’s sort of required to keep his Calvinist card). But he at least admits that these verses certainly seem to show a desire by God that all be saved. This is where the title comes in. On the one hand, God wants all to be saved. But, on the other, He has decided not to elect everyone to salvation (thereby damning countless billions that he desires to save). So he goes about trying to prove 1. That both wills actually exist in God, and 2. That God chose to allow his sovereign, electing will to triumph over his universal, saving will. Needless to say, that’s an unusual Calvinist argument, at least in some ways. Usually the Calvinist simply asserts that ‘all’ doesn’t REALLY mean all, or that ‘world’ doesn’t REALLY mean world, or that ‘whosoever’ doesn’t REALLY mean whosoever. By the time they ‘exegete’ the passage, it means something totally different than what it actually says. Though Piper nods to this at the beginning of the article, he bases his argument on the notion that these universal-sounding verses actually mean what they say. That’s very non-Calvinist of him. But the way he frames the issue makes no Biblical sense whatsoever. God wants two diametrically opposite outcomes? He wants all to be saved, but only bothers to elect some, thereby consigning the rest to eternal torment? And since Piper ascribes to the notion of Total Depravity, those who were non-elect really have no options other than reprobation and hell. This really makes no sense at all. At best, Piper creates a schizophrenic God. I have no idea how he thought that this argument would appeal to Arminians in any way. But thank you for this video. I enjoyed it immensely and you made some great points. By the way, I just remembered that Piper develops these ideas in more depth in his little book “Spectacular Sins and their Global Purpose in the Glory of Christ.” In this book he argues that God decrees human sins, in violation of His prescriptive will, in order to bring about His eternal purposes. I’m not suggesting you read it. It’s a terrible book. And it’s clear that Piper realizes that he is making God the ultimate author of sin. He adds a lengthy footnote on James 1:13-15 to try to justify his position that is in clear violation of the verse that says: James 1:13: “[13] Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man …” His explanation is really a lot of philosophical mumbo-jumbo. But it clearly points to the fact that even Piper realizes that this doctrine he’s creating is very inconsistent with scripture. Yes, he comes up with some very interesting passages and examples. And someone should probably sit down and write a theological treatment of some of the passages he quotes. But I’m certain that his answer is wrong. God does not force people to sin, then punish them eternally for that sin. Now I know he goes to great lengths to say that God isn’t forcing people to sin, but if you look at the examples he cites, Piper really is saying that.
In I Samuel 23:9-13, God himself prophesies something that DIDN'T come to pass: "David said, 'LORD, God of Israel, your servant has heard definitely that Saul plans to come to Keilah and destroy the town on account of me. Will the citizens of Keilah surrender me to him? Will Saul come down, as your servant has heard? LORD, God of Israel, tell your servant.' And the Lord said, 'He will.' Again David asked, 'Will the citizens of Keilah surrender me and my men to Saul?' And the Lord said, 'They will.'” We are then told: "So David and his men, about six hundred in number, left Keilah and kept moving from place to place. When Saul was told that David had escaped from Keilah, he did not go there." It strongly appears to me that God's "will" was "thwarted" by human decisions.
Piper is an exegetical magician. God hardens the hearts of people who have hardened their own hearts Of course, Pharoah is the biblical example applied to unfaithful Israel. Isreal became Egypt. The problem with your analogy Leighton is that the detective cannot force the drug addict to buy the drugs, all he can do is tempt them. The drug addict had the free will to say no to the deal. Stings don't always work. God did render the outcome certain but only after these people had gone too far.
Does Provisionist theology affirm God’s perfect foreknowledge? Ie, God’s ability to have perfect knowledge of future events. If so, in your framework, before God created anything or anyone He had perfect knowledge of who exactly would be saved or would be damned. So for example if I remain unsaved my whole life, before I was created and before I ever did anything on my own, God knew this fact. He knew I would only ever end up in hell. Meaning I could never change that fact. I could never accept Christ, because the truth of me rejecting Him was established before time. Meaning the truth was established with God. Not me. And yet, God goes ahead and creates me anyways knowing full well I will end up hell. If God’s knowledge of the future is perfect, then I could never change the fact I am going to be dammed for eternity. God created me knowing I would go to hell and never be saved. So how do Provisionists or Arminians get around this? This is a sincere question, from a Calvinist. Thanks.
Your questions are actually philosophical. And some of your stated assumptions related to God and time are simplistic. You might pursue William L. Craig and his discussions of Molinism for potential solutions to several aspects of your questions. And C.S. Lewis related to time. Meanwhile, Flowers has taught a position that deviates from both Calvinistic determinism and from Arminian Openness that allows God’s complete foreknowledge and also actual interaction. They are not incongruent! His view isn’t caught in the supposed dilemma that trips up determinists and openness adherents into unnecessary either/or convictions about the future. Remember this above all else: God is free. Always. (This solves so many only seeming problems).
Exactly. The only logical end for the free will adherent is open theism. I praise God for inconsistent worldviews as thankfully few free will adherents go that route.
Sin is disobedience to God. Only human beings can sin. God cannot sin or be guilty of sin. Therefore the idea that God decreeing sin somehow gives Him culpability is wrong, because God cannot disobey Himself. Moral commands are for people. God brought murder and rape as judgment against nations many times in the bible. He is the judge, jury and executioner, so who are we to question His activities and motives for it? In doing so you believe that you have enough understanding and wisdom to question God which is a serious error. The other stumbling block for people who reject God's sovereign will over all things is that God acting in history and decreeing things are two separate realities. Sometimes the angel of the Lord struck down people directly and other times God used empires to judge other empires, upon which later those former empires would be judged as well. From our vantage point it is impossible to know the full extent of God's plan and motive for decreeing such things, or why He didn't do it differently, but apparently many people today think they can question God's motives because they study a little too much philosophy instead of the bible.
Two possible explanations. Creating evil reffers to bringing evil times and hardship. Or because there is a positive good the idea of evil can exist. Only in reference to good can evil exist.
I could not speak for God except what His Word speaks to me. I'm not a believer in the Calvinist teaching and I disagree with John Piper's theological perspective, he appears to be today's leading Calvinist. I believe that God has an allowable Will and His perfect Will. Look at Jonah's example.
The biggest problem with Calvinism (and frankly, many Christian systematics) is that they always view scripture with an either/or mentality. If something is one way in this scripture, it has to be that way throughout the Bible. The truth is, much of scripture and we could say God's will, should be examined from a both/and perspective.
God does have two, wills he has a permissive and an active will. But this doesn’t seem to have anything to do with what mr Piper is saying. The permissive will is what God allows to happen this is sin, death, suffering, etc. The active will is what God wills into being actively. Like miracles, creation, the Flood, etc.
Yes. Or we might say: God causes some things to happen and passively allows other things to happen. However, the strong Calvinist doesn't make these distinctions. The consistent Calvinist sees all activity as actively ordained by God and rendered certain. Fancy words for predetermined or scripted -- which then plays out. So, the 2 wills theory is proposed as a solution to the resultant quandary of how God could "render certain" truly evil actions! Leighton is offering another way; another option.
@@chaddonal4331 I'm not sure you could say actively ordained by God, rather instead To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of predestination he includes in it each person’s free response to his grace: “In this city, in fact, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place” [Acts 4:27-28]. For the sake of accomplishing his plan of salvation, God permitted the acts that flowed from their blindness as an example but actively ordained them he did not.
@@JBlackjackp This is well-stated -- in illustration of what God intends (what He has ordained to come to pass) and what God passively allows (the sins of people that participate in setting the stage for God's heroic saving actions). This is a different distinction than the full Calvinists are wrestling with. Again, they DO see God's ACTIVE CAUSING of all things to happen -- which creates the very dilemma that Piper's 2-wills of God theory aims to solve. For non-Calvinists, what you described works just fine. No 2-wills necessary.
@@chaddonal4331 it has more to do with God Ordaining both (just not actively) God does literally will all things if he does not at least will it permissively it will not happen. This is because God is existence itself and nothing can exist or happen without him willing it in some way.
What God allows, His permissable will and His perfect Will what He decrees to happen. I don't believe He declared that He would not allow some to believe, I reject that teaching because I do not believe that the Bible teaches that.
The video jumped so quickly to “the crucifixion doesn’t prove God decreed all evil” that we didn’t get an answer to the question in the title of the video.
I'm not a Calvinist (didn't even know what it was til 2 years ago), but in the back of my head, I did believe that God predetermined everything. For example: I had a really bad friendship breakup two years ago because of not speaking up and making horrible decisions, but I was like "It had to happen". No matter how horrible I did things, it needed to happen. And I would start to look for outward reasons to back up that statement. "Since I didn't do otherwise, it must have been what needed to happen." In a way, I believe that it's an excuse to not take responsibility for our actions and we would put God's word against Him and make Him a liar. Why would we need a brain and all this warning in the Bible if we didn't have the ability to digest it and make choices?
Yeah its almost like God said "Thou shalt not kill" but then he predestined Christ to die. Acts 4:27-28 "for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel,to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place." Killing Jesus, and actually him being brutally murdered, was predestined, so that I may live.
The Triune God does indeed have two wills, but John Piper's Calvinistic conception of them is predictably theologically and logically tortured. The Thomistic conception of this doctrine is, I think, the best way to understand it. According to Thomism, God has an antecedent will and a consequent will. His antecedent will was in use before God ever even created the cosmos. It is unconditional, which means that whatever God actively wills _will_ come to pass. Nothing can thwart or nullify God's antecedent will. The creation of the world, the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ on the Cross, and the establishment of the Millennial Kingdom are merely three of the multitudinous amount of events that God's antecedent will brought to fruition. Essentially, His antecedent will can be thought of as His overarching divine plan. God's consequent will comprises anything that He desires to see come to pass, but will not violate human free will in order to achieve it. This makes it conditional. For example, God _wants_ to see all people repent and accept His Son as the Savior (2 Peter 3:9, cf. Luke 13:24), but He will _not_ override human free will by forcing them to do so. It is very important to remember that His consequent will never contradicts His antecedent will, and vice versa. They are in eternal harmony and are externally and internally consistent.
He has two wills on EVERY view that isn’t open theism. The instant you say that God demands X morally of his people, but he allows ~X for morally sufficient reasons, then you have exactly what the Reformed mean by two wills. We DONT mean two different faculties.
When Calvin's god's ENUNCIATED will is in direct opposition to his SECRET will - the ENUNCIATED will functions as a FALSE representation of the SECRET will. Thus we have a deceptive deity.
Yes I absolutely disagree with the separate wills as defined by Calvinism. However, there may be a different sort of separate will. As in the difference between God wills that all man be saved, yet, permissively, because of our and Gods will to grant libertarian free will, not all men are.
Nothing in Proverbs 16:4 says he made them wicked, only that even their evil deeds are part of God's plans to accomlish his purpose. To interpret as God creating people and making them do evil so he can punish them for the evil he made them do, would be absurd and contradict the statement literally two verses prior in verse 2.
You are very fair to distinguish between “John Piper Calvinism” and “historical Calvinism” because keep in mind, John Piper is a baptist.. which is historically not Reformed. John Piper is also a defender of abortion loving politicians, to the point where he defends them staying in office.. one wonders how John Piper can claim Christianity while defending abortion in this way.. perhaps John Piper has his own version of everything.
In a sense, God has two "wills" - That which He would prefer to happen, and that which He allows to happen by free will, even if it's not an action He would prefer a man to take.
Determined is continually used instead of permitted. Within the understanding of the will of God did He “ permit “ or “ allow” John the Baptist to be beheaded ? Does God in His “ permissive will” allow for martyrs in the body of Christ? I’d like to hear an Arminian understanding of these events from a sovereign God position? Thanks... no arguing allowed only dialogue 🙏🏻
@@DrChrisPM Hebrew word for “ determined “ which is better translated “ planned “ is yâtsar . The Greek proorizō is pre-determined or again “planned “ Honestly, I believe that many have honest intentions and I believe that you have no desire to win a disagreement just for winnings sake... neither do I. The issue is what does scripture teach us about the character of God and how His will is understood.
@@DrChrisPM are you pointing this out because it was allowed /permitted by God? If so, does that mean when God allowed it, it cannot mean he determined/ordained/decreed it? If that isn't why you mention it, please let us know. Thanks mate.
I think if you really look at it Calvinism could be classified as a form of Hinduism masquerading as Christianity. A God indifferent to good and evil producing both like the Hindu Brahma.
One thing I have never heard a calvinist explain is, if libertarian free will does not exist, then WHY does God see a need to make a world so full of suffering and loss? Why must god employ grotesque evil? Please give me an explanation.
I think God consist of multiple persons and also has multiple wills... one will is that we do not sin and the other will is that we get free will and thus are able to sin... also Jesus wanted to not suffer the cross and the Father wanted the opposite... Matthew 26:39 Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will."
I se many “geniuses” here asking same question that Paul responded in Romans 9:20! Look like Paul answer to this “argument” is an Ultimate Offence for people like you and also revelation about - the kind of audience - that tends to ask this questions! You simply think that God must be like you -a human! 😅😅
They worship a "franken-god", a bizarre combination of God as described in the Bible distorted almost beyond recognition by their man-made presuppositions that are ultimately based on pagan Greek philosophy that assumed that gods were like Zeus. The two concepts they try to combine are like oil and water, so they end up as unhinged double-minded devotees of an unhinged double-minded god.
Since Jesus is part of the Godhead, that would be Him exercising His own free will - Acts 2:23 If I were to take Acts 4:27-28 to argue that which you asked about, that would be the fallacy of particular to general. That Jesus would be crucified was prophesied. Which rulers would come together to accomplish it was not necessarily included in the predestination. It could be argued that Jesus entered the world at the exact time knowing how the future panning out would bring together evil rulers to crucify Him
@@DrChrisPM The exercise of freewill is not enough here. God’s command is not to kill and yet He willed that Jesus be Killed. It seems God’s will is contrary to His command.
Greg Jay I know it's just an analogy, but I'm not sure I really like the sting operation idea. Just because it turns God into a deceiver. I prefer to say God knew what they would freely do before he created the world. Since he created the world he wanted to create, all things work according to his plan, regardless of whether we intend it for evil or not. Yes God brings about certain situations, because he "brought about" all situations and knew every person and what they would do before they were even born.
@@gregjay9933 Rather than viewing it as God requiring His Son be killed, the Bible teaches that Jesus sacrificially laid down His Own life. "I have power to lay it down and to take it up"
Greg Jay God willed that we shall not murder. However if our free will is used in such a way that goes against God's will not to murder, than it is only God who can use that for something good in the way he does. God lets us choose freely to obey or disobey him, however when we disobey we aren't "tricking" God, he knew we would disobey. His will for his Son to die on the cross is in concert with the free will of human beings and also in concert with his law for people not to murder, because the people were told not to, but they did anyway. Every argument is answered in this formulation. God didn't force or will them by decree to kill Jesus, but he knew they would on their own. So, just as much as it was not right for them to kill Jesus, it was also right for God to create a world where it would need to happen.
How does one read a passage of scripture that contradicts their personal understanding of God and come to the conclusion that they have to invent a doctrine to explain their view before considering that they may be wrong in their understanding?
They likely think: "Everyone else I trust believes in this (Calvinism), so what trouble verses I encounter are the "mysteries of God". Or, perhaps they say "If I let it out that I'm not a Calvinist any more, I'd lose my job, my ministry, my income, my friends, etc" After all these years of wearing the Calvinist glasses, they can't take them off for one or another reason.
I think I might have it, I sent this video to a friend with my thoughts. I might be wrong but the best analogy I can put to what the hard core ultra Calvinists are saying is God is playing chess against himself and he has thrown the kitchen sink at it.
