What About Free Will? | Apologia Radio Highlight 

He is worthy of all praise

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Only God is absolute. But pharaoh did what he did because of his heart

Anyone that reads the Book of Jonah has to accept the fact that God caused Jonah to go to Nineveth. Jonah believed in free will and decided to do the opposite of what God wanted him to do.

This is a phenomenal point! I often read the comments, but I rarely find ones that get me to pause and think like this one.

Did you chose the day you were born? How can you then chose when you were born again? Its a sovereign act of Gods grace

@@Pugilist928 For one being born again is receiving the Holy Ghost when accepting Christ as your Savior. If God predestines one thing then everything is predestined? Your theology is horrendous.

Not to mention that he could have just teleported his people out of Egypt like he did with Philip if that was really the main goal.

But does God actually have libertarian free will? I mean, God can only act according to His nature, right? That is, God does not have the "freedom" to sin, I think that we would agree there. So we see that even in God, the will is not free, but instead is a servant to His nature.

@@lawrencestanley8989 If the definition that I stated "ability to make free choices that are not determined by prior conditions" holds then yes, God's will is free. Ours is not.

@@markxivlxii1390 I just wonder if it is an attempt to define something that doesn't exist in any capacity by any being. Is it your position that God's choices are not determined by His character and nature?

Not exactly true, he mixes Law and Gospel, makes Gospel out to be a work.

@@reformedcatholic457 He absolutely does NOT!!! Believe in a works salvation! I have watched several where he talks about we are saved by faith through grace and that our love for Christ follows good works, that we can not be saved by works but by the blood of Jesus and repenting! I wish you people would stop lying about this!!

@@reformedcatholic457no he doesn’t. Give proof.

I 100% agree! He's got a way of teaching that's points only to Christ and what HE'S done. Same reason why I like Jeff. Both are true shepherds of our Lord. God bless!

​@@barefootkid592.0 Thank you!

God doesn't control everything we "think, say and do" He is all knowing, not all controlling

In the exact same way that Shakespeare forced Juliet to love Romeo, and drink poison...... You are imagining a scenario in which man is neutral and then is added either good or evil desires. But this is not the case. Adam tied us to damnation, after which no obligation exists to save any of his children. As to the "God causes us to sin" accusations, God causes, as a first cause, all things. But that does not remove your desires, any more than it removes Juliet's desires. It does not "cause" you to sin anymore than Shakespeare "caused" Romeo to die. Shakespeare is not a murderer just because he decreed the actions of a murderer. With that said there are only 3 possibilities here. Either everyone goes to heave, everyone goes to hell, or some to each. Which one of those reveals both justice and mercy?

I was raised with the Arminian view of scripture until I was truly regenerated at the appointed time at age 33. How anyone who is truly born again can read Gods Word and come out the other side not believing predestination is biblical is just ludicrous to me. Romans 9 alone is unavoidable for the Arminian…unless they highlight their Bible with a sharpie…as it seems so many do. Gods Word is abundantly clear on the issue…to suggest it isn’t is just another false man centered, I can do it better, pagan, anti -Christ, hard hearted worldview. I’m still hyper zealous about it no doubt haha.

Was Jesus a puppet? Was his whole life not predestined and predetermined?

@@kellygipson8354The major flaw in your analogy is that Romeo and Juliet aren’t real. If Juliet was real and Shakespeare forced her to drink poison then he would be a murderer.

An unregenerate heart is already a heart of Stone towards God.

@@aletheia8054 I can agree. In Pharaoh’s case however, wasn’t he already opposed to the idea of freeing God’s people? Why did God have to harden his heart throughout all of the plagues that came his way?

@@MrStrongBro God hardened his heart towards pharaohs on best interest. His heart was already hard towards God.

@@MrStrongBro in the Bible, the heart is the place of understanding. God can harden your heart towards understanding this or understanding that.

Indeed. Calvinism leaves no room for personal responsibility.

@@onclesam1463wrong

Does it really tho??? I don’t get it?

Thats the same as saying Jesus cant be 100% God bc He was 100% man. ​@onclesam1463

Both are mentioned in the Bible. Ex. 8:32 Pharaoh hardened his heart. Ex. 9:12 The LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart.

@@AdamsTaiwan Thanks! I did not realize that.

The only hero in the Bible is Jesus. Everyone else mentioned are sinful men used by God to bring about His will & purpose. Jesus death on the cross was only for His people not everyone. If His death was for everyone, then all would be saved. If His sacrifice paid for all peoples sins, why would anyone go to hell?

@@melissabrown3976 Hey, thanks for the response! Understood, I got it wrong. Only Jesus is the hero. When we read the bible, should we identify with anyone? When Jesus spoke or when Paul wrote his letters, should we take Jesus teachings and Pauls letters as they were meant for us? And about Jesus dying for his people. Is it his people those who believe that he's one person of the triumph God? That came down and lived a perfect life? Who then died in the cross for our sins and resurected on the third day? Or is it a selected amount of those people that not only believed, but also he predestined?

@@melissabrown3976I understand what you’re trying to say but it’s hard to hold that position if you read Hebrews 11, often called the hall of faith.

It’s the question that isn’t clearly answer as to how God decrees “ALL things” even the bad ones and somehow man is still responsible for doing what man decreed them to do, while simultaneously preventing them from coming to salvation. I understand the message they’re trying to say is “God saves you, not yourself,” but I think they’re misunderstanding the free will perspective, which I believe fits scripture better with man being responsible for the sins he commits as well as his response to the Gospel. How can a Calvinist call it the Gospel, which means “good news,” when the unchosen never have a chance to begin with? They were made to be damned according to Calvinism.

Is that true though? God said he would harden Pharoah well before Moses even went to him the first time way back in chapter 4. The thing to keep in mind as well is that Calvinists don't view it as man's free will vs God's free will, but that both ultimately go together even if they work at cross goals for the same choice. Gen 50: 20.

@@oracleoftroy is what true? The scripture says it in that chronological order? Unless you mean “is it true” that Pharaoh legitimately hardened his heart apart from God’s statement that he would harden it beforehand? Genuinely, couldn’t the Molinists say the same thing though? That God’s will and mankind’s limited free-will “go together”? I know my question presupposes a few things., but I asked it knowing that some 5-point Calvinists also believe in Middle Knowledge. I find myself somewhere in the middle and am trying to figure it out. All my Calvinist friends have varying explanations on what calvinism is and how it explains parts of scripture and its hard to figure out what the mainline Calvinist points actually are…if that makes sense? I’m personally reading through John Calvin’s Institutes and there’s a lot of Calvinists who disagree with some of his points and I am confused but it feels like the Arminian friends I have all line up on what they believe and teach, and same with my Molinist friends.

@@Pastor_Chief _"is what true?"_ This bit: _"...it also says before God hardened his heart that the pharaoh actually hardened his own heart."_ The first person credited with hardening Pharoah's heart is God back in chapter 4, not pharaoh. _"Genuinely, couldn’t the Molinists say the same thing though? That God’s will and mankind’s limited free-will “go together”?"_ Not in the same way. They separate man's will and God's will even at the eternal level. In Reformed theology, when God is creating the universe, he is he is said to "ordain" a universe that suits his plans, by which the Reformed include all the planning, purposing, designing, etc that goes into every detail of the plan. God's knowledge of all possible universes comes from his natural knowledge and the universe he chooses to create comes solely from God. Everything about it originates solely from God and is established solely by God. For the Molinist, there is a third party to God, that of the potential humans living in potential universes. God knows the possible universes through "middle-knowledge" and the potential actions of potential humans in potential universes is independent from God. Some say that God can't create any universe that is within his power to create, he can only create the universes knowable through middle-knowledge. And so when God ordains a universe, it is the one he sees through middle-knowledge. Again, the free actions of these potential humans is independent and separate from God, observed through the window of middle-knowledge, not something directly known by God based solely on God's character and nature and purposes. So in Molinism, God's choices are limited by potential man's choices, and he ordains out of the available options, and then realized man does what God and potential man decided for them to do. I think that makes the universe far more fatalistic than even the worst strawman of Calvinism, but a Molinist might not see it that way. Some think realized man also has libertarian free will, which if realized means that God's knowledge of what man would do in this or that universe is wrong, as they did contrary to what God knows. I'm not sure, but I think this is a minority opinion, though I know Craig raised the possibility. So God is limited in his choice of universes by things outside of God, the knowledge he has of potential human action learned through middle-knowledge. He isn't unlimited in the way the Calvinist believes in terms of creating any universe fit for his purposes while still being able to establish human free will by what he ordains. In my view, Molinism makes potential man a co-creator of the universe and God dependent on something outside of himself, where scripture teaches there is none beside God and that God is the sole being who created all things. _"...but I asked it knowing that some 5-point Calvinists also believe in Middle Knowledge."_ Do they really? I would be surprised. What I see a lot is Molinists equating Middle Knowledge with counter-factual knowledge. Whenever Molinism is discussed, someone will try to point to this or that passage of God's counter-factual knowledge as scriptural proof for Molinism, but that begs the question. Reformed Theology absolutely affirms God's counter-factual knowledge without affirming Middle Knowledge at all. The Calvinist might be speaking of counter-factual knowledge, or confusing the terms, or not aware of the historic Reformed position. I'm not aware of any Calvinist who affirms Middle Knowledge as a genuine thing in Reformed Theology. _"All my Calvinist friends have varying explanations on what calvinism is and how it explains parts of scripture and its hard to figure out what the mainline Calvinist points actually are…if that makes sense?"_ I get it. And I think everyone has their own contrary definition. Not to mention some awful definitions used by people trying argue against it. One has to wade through a lot of uninformed takes, and frankly it can come from all sides. I always try to point people to the historic Reformed confessions, especially The Westminster Confession and the Three Forms of Unity, as an objective source for what Calvinists believe. One or the other of those form the statement of belief of most Reformed denominations (or the London Baptist Confession for Reformed Baptists, which is pretty much an edited Westminster Confession). They also help see a more full-bodied Reformed faith. Most people overly reduce "Calvinism" to just the five points, but something like the Westminster Confession touches on every aspect of the faith and how it all holds together, from the stuff everyone agrees on to the more controversial stuff. Of course, if you are just interested in the five points, the Canon of Dort (which is one of the three documents making up the Three Forms of Unity) is the document that officially lays out what they do and do not teach. One thing to keep in mind when reading Calvin is that none of Calvin's writings have any sort of special or official place in a "Calvinist" church. Calvin was just one Reformer teaching on these things, there were many others. People labeled the Reformer's teachings as "Calvinism", and now many get confused and think Calvin is somehow an unduly special figure in the theology. He isn't. His writings are important and studied in seminaries, but not as some doctrinal standard like the confessions are. Most "Calvinists" haven't read a word of Calvin. As for other reasons a Calvinist might disagree with Calvin, since you are reading the Institutes you'll know this: Calvin spends a lot of time developing his points, paragraph on paragraph and chapter on chapter. If you are trying to read a small portion of Calvin to them and they aren't familiar with the backdrop Calvin has developed to get to that point, they might think they disagree because of something they are reading into the wording that Calvin has already addressed and repudiated. It's hard to reduce Calvin to a bite sized quote that does justice to his theology. Again, that's why I think the historic confessions are better primary sources for laying out the theology, they are written to pack a lot of theology into more independent chunks.

Amen! God won't lose a single one of his beloved in the fire he is storing up for the judgement of the scoffers.

Leighton Flowers is a joke

There is a debate he did with James White.

Ditto. James White often dismantles Flowers nonsense.

Ex Calvinist... 😂

​@@umaikakudoheretic James white did what? That's hilarious.

I can only have certainty when starting with scripture, the living written Holy Spirit breathed word of God. He revealed it from the beginning. Budhism, Islam and all other religions had a beginning much later so no need to even consider them. According to Rom. 1:18-22 you do know that God exists, time to stop suppressing that truth. Were "like" children in a classroom standing at the board and writing the answer to 2+3. I write 2+3=5 because the answer was told to me and then I could see it. You look at all the other children each with their own answer and conclude that there cannot be 1 correct answer or that it is unknowable. The truth is that there is one correct answer and an infinite # of wrong answers. Coming to know the truth starts here: repent and believe the gospel. Trust Jesus the Christ and make this your first prayer: "God have mercy on me a sinner". Read the Bible and wait for His salvation to be worked in your heart.

@@AdamsTaiwan If I said, wouldn't it be more certain, more reliable, to base our belief in what our senses percieve than to base it on Ancient Historical claims, could you help me to see my error?

​@@bboynewsboy991 if you said that about your personal preference of ice cream then, yes, because that is a personal thing you can choose. However, you don't get to decide who God is, we must start with what God has revealed. Think about it: God chose to reveal Himself thru the first 4,000 years of HIS-tory (even that word is about Him). Then He splits time by entering time and space in Jesus. He solves our biggest problem, sin, then completes His instruction book, the Bible, with instructions on how to live and with a view of how things will end. It is perfect, so why would anyone want to trust their faulty senses? He tells that our hearts are deceitful. Jer. 17:9. How could I trust what you said over what your neighbor says? Without it written in a book that has stood the test of time, all we would get is a bunch of new religions like Islam or cults like Mormons. Again, scripture explains that getting truth follows repentance. "with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth," 2 Timothy 2:25

🩸 Faith🩸 Romans 3 kJV 25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

They already have malice. It’s apart of man’s sinful nature. God can restrain the sinfulness of man or he can allow it to run free in order to accomplish his will. It’s not his malice it’s theirs. But he can use it or restrain it to his own purpose.

@@seansimpson1133 "Its not his malice, it's theirs." okay, so freewill.

@@TS-ee7jx _"okay, so freewill."_ Sounds in line with Calvinism to me. Strange that you seem to be using free will like a gotcha that way. The Reformed confessions have always affirmed human free will.

@@oracleoftroy So you take the non-deterministic and inconsistent calvinist view. I would say this is more in line with God's word but definitely makes for a confusing view.

@@TS-ee7jx Not sure what you mean by non-deterministic view. You can't have free will in an indeterministic universe. It makes no sense. You have to have the ability to actually cause your will to obtain, otherwise all you have is randomness. So I am a determinist. But determinism isn't fatalism or hard determinism or any of the typical things anticalvinists have in mind. It's a whole family of theories. Calvinists take a compatiblist approach and affirm that free will is in harmony with what God ordains, indeed their confessions explicitly stated that God ordains all that comes to pass, and in doing so God establishes human free will and the liberty and contingency of second causes by what he ordains (WCF 3.1). No one could have free will at all if God didn't determine his creation such that man was given free will. The inconsistent one is the indeterminist who holds that man can exercise their free will to determine some outcome. That's a blatant contradiction.

You are who God foreordained you to be.

So do you believe everything that happens is preordained by God

@@Brenda-qo4ko That doesn't answer the question.

@@johndennison3140 Absolutely...because that's what His word tells us. Isaiah 46:10 is only one of MANY scriptures that speak of his total sovereignty.

You're guslarscheid3606.

Yes it does because the Bible teaches clearly the inability of man and the sovereignty of god

Because beliefs have implications ....and wrong doctrine can be a destructive heresy 2pet2:1

I believe it does effect the gospel, because if someone is a calvanist then they can't honestly say to someone that God loves them, because they don't know that, because they believe that God chooses to save some, but chooses to send many millions of people to burn in hell for and eternity when he could of saved them, but in reality that's not what the gospel teaches us, the gospel tells us that God loves the world and wills that no one should perish, but that all should come to repent.

If you have any part in contributing to your salvation you can lose it. What if you change your mind or mess up? If salvation is entirely of God then there is nothing that can prevent God from keeping you secure in his free, unearned, unmerited gift of adoption into his covenant family. John 10 "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. I and the Father are one.”

Then I guess you don't believe what Acts 4:27-28 says.

The crucifixion was going to take place because all God had to do was take his hand off the situation and let Satan and fallen nature takes its course @@Brenda-qo4ko

Like a fish in a bowl, has freedom in the bowl, but not to leave it.

It isn't an absolute requirement, but if you're not poor then you really should be doing it. They're providing you important services, and they need to be financially taken care of. I'd stay away from anyone who says it's some kind of test though, that's manipulative.

If you're talking about John 14, then Judas had already left the room in John 13, before Jesus made that promise.

And most of the comments reject Rome's theology as false, because it is false. Truth is decided by RU-vid commenters after all...

No

How can the Truth lie? That's like asking can a triangle be a rectangle.

Can the light dark?

♥️ feels good to be born again ♥️ 1 Peter 1 kJV 23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. 24 For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: 25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you. ✝️ Gospel 🩸 1 Corinthians 15 kJV 1-4 ✝️🩸 Romans 3 kJV 23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

♥️ what’s your faith in? Romans 4 kJV 5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. 🤔 Faith in what? Romans 3 kJV 25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

@@jtv_70 ♥️ I am a born again, Christian I am not a Calvinist. What about you? 1 Peter 1 kJV 23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. 24 For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: 25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you. ✝️ Gospel 🩸 1 Corinthians 15 kJV 1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. 3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: Romans 1 kJV 16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

Calvinist don’t believe in free will. They believe in predestination . Some people were predestinated to go to heaven. Some people were predestinated to go to hell.

♥️ I believe Jesus Christ, can see if anybody through their own free will. 1 Corinthians 15 kJV ✝️🩸 1-4 Romans 3 kJV 23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

@@AlexanderBrown77yes, I am aware of that. It didn’t seem like the hosts explained their position, just talked about the topic.

Very good !

It is helpful to reflect on what sense the Reformed confessions say God ordains all that comes to pass. You seem to be referencing Westminster Confession 3.1, but many will not reflect that God ordains all that comes to pass such that he establishes human free will and the liberty and contingency of second causes by what he ordains. Instead, they drop the nuance and redefine God's ordination into some sort of exhaustive determinism strawman.

i completely understand. i had problems with the same thing until i heard RC Sproul say this... humanity has free will... but so does God and when our wills collide God always wins.

If that what you think they you either don't understand Molinism or Calvinism.The only one in Calvinism that has an autonomous, libertarian free will is God.Everything that happens in time is a direct result of GOD'S plans and purposes...not man's free will.

@@Brenda-qo4ko Do you not think that the all powerful all knowing God has the ability to accomplish his will through the free beings he created?

@@benjy288 it is not about whether or not He could, but who is in control. If molinism or related soteriological systems are true, then God has to shape His will around what man will do, and that is simply not biblical

@@jokinghazard4022 It simply means God can get his will done through mans free will, and part of God's will was to create free creatures, because in order to love you have to be free, he didn't create us to be robots.

@@benjy288 Exactly how would that work?For instance, if God intended for Christ's crucifixion to come about at a certain time and place, and exactly how it happened with the players involved then how could God be sure that happened if He didn't providentially order all events in time including people's behavior leading up to that?What about the prophecies that were given hundreds of years before his crucifixion?Could those be invalidated by people's autonomous choices made outside of God's will? Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things that have not been done, saying "MY council will be established, and I will accomplish MY good pleasure." Isaiah 46:10 All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, but He does according to HIS will in the host of heaven AND among the inhabitants of the earth; and no one can strike His hand or say to Him, "What have you done?" Dan 4:35 Who is there who speaks and it happens UNLESS the Lord has commanded it? Lam 3:37 The lot is cast into the lap, BUT it's EVERY judgement IS FROM THE LORD. Prov 16:33 The heart of a man plans his way, BUT Yahweh establishes his steps. Prov 16:9 Come now, you who say ,"Today or tomorrow we will go to such and such city, and spend a year there and make a profit." Yet you don't know what your life will be like tomorrow.You are a vapor that appears for a little while and then vanishes away.Instead you ought to say, "IF THE LORD WILLS, we will live and also do this or that." James 4:13-15

Scripture doesn't give enough information on their wills pre-fall.

Sounds good!! I would really appreciate if you show me how to go about it ?

My financial life has completely changed all thanks to Mrs Rose Jude Marks awesome trading strategies!!!

Wow I know her and I have also been trading with her, She's such an amazing woman with good skills keeps me happy all week knowing I earn 15thousand extra income trading with her.

Her trading income stream is mind blowing, I also trade with her. I've made $62,000 so far trading with her guidance/advice.

how can I reach out to Rose's services???

When something is predestined it's predetermined. Scripture says we were chosen in Him " from before the foundation of the world ". So it's in eternity before time and creation itself.

Apologia is an awesome ministry but I would encourage you to also check out Ligonier Ministries and different resources they have. Really edifying 👍

@@caseycockerham3925 He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world to be holy and blameless, its not saying God chooses who will be in Christ and who won't, or to put it another way, those that chose to accept Christ as their savior are destined to be blameless, just like if someone chooses to take guitar lessons everyday for 20 years they will be destined to be a good guitar player, the pre part of destined is just because God being all knowing and outside of time already knew which people would accept him and which would reject him before he even created us.

@@benjy288 where did God get the knowledge of who would accept or reject him?

@@NeededGR13F He's all knowing, that's like asking where did he get the power to create the universe from nothing, from himself, he's God.

They already reject Hypercalvinism. Hypercalvinism is the idea that you have to look for signs of regeneration before you share the Gospel with someone.

Yea, its like they take the word soverign to mean that God basically controls everything, they can't seem to understand that God being outside of time, and knowing our every thought, and how people would react in certain situations could still make his will come to pass without overriding the will of his free creatures.

Yep, which contradicts passages in the Bible which state that God loves the world and wills that no one should perish.

He's decided that they'll serve a different purpose than those he saves.

Psalm 5:5 and 11:5 , Romans 9:13.

So whether I am saved or not is a lottery? Or if he chooses then why does he hate those he chooses not to save?@@NeededGR13F

The first two have nothing to do with the doctrine of predestination which claims that God chooses whom he saves not based on any of their traits, nor on foreknowledge of whether they would accept, but based on his sovereign will. Romans 9:13 could indicated that except it does not mean what you think it means, the word hate there is a hangover from the KJV and not what it means today, which is how I used the word in my comment.@@KingJesusSavedMe

Did Christians of that era choose Christ, or did he choose them? It is a difficult part of theology to wrap your mind around no doubt. The more I understand about my sinful heart and nature, I am amazed that anyone can say they chose Christ. Listen to the verses of “come thou fount of every blessing”. Even reconciled and redeemed, we have a sin nature that does not choose God. We all like sheep have gone astray…

I wonder if it doesn’t matter which one is true. I wonder if it’s just that some people need to here the gospel from Arminian to be saved and some need to hear it from Calvinist to be saved.

@@mdcopenhaveryou don’t have to believe in one or the other to be saved this doctrine isn’t based on your salvation. I know I was saved before understanding or know about Calvinism or Arminianism. The more you look into each according to scripture the more texts in scripture you see like up with and are consistent with Calvin’s views of the doctrines of grace. I feel like as you stay on he path of biblical consistency throughout you see in John 6 and 10 doctrines of grace being blatant. It is hard to grasp no doubt, but some of the most incomprehensible things about God and his sovereignty are the most beautiful and glorious things.

For me, Calvinism has never really made much sense every other religion relies on works. At least you have the certainty of uncertainty. You have to wait until you get there. In Calvinism there’s just uncertainty Was I chosen by God or not you’re helpless works don’t work and you don’t have a choice. There is no hope in Calvinism. Armenian ism is the only one that makes sense. If all men get to choose, then God is just in fair if we don’t , then he’s not. I believe everyone is given a choice, but Calvinist don’t believe that it’s very sad.

Because Arminius rejected the tenants of the Reformation. He sided with Rome specifically when it comes to the will of man, which is the point that all of Rome's errors spring forth from.

Firstly, it is spelled Calvinists. Secondly, in what way?

@@douglasmcnay644 If I don't have free will then I'm God, if you don't have free will then you're God.

I think you're thinking of the Mormons.

​@@guslarscheid3606?? So when Calvinists confess that we do have free will like in Westminster Confession chapter 9 and 3 and 5, what happens to your assertions?

@@oracleoftroy I'm not sure what that is. If you're a calvinist that believes we have free will, it seems like you'll have a different set of problems. I'm speaking about the belief that we do not have free will, which would seem to mean that God is acting out everything and I don't believe that to be true.

Predestination is biblical

Amen. "Free will" is a concept from pagan philosophy. God predestines all things in His creation

It's free will in the eyes of us, but not to God who knows how everything plays out based on the way he designs it. We think we are doing what we want but we are doing what we were destined to do by our nature and upbringing

​@@wishuhadmynamelol free will isn't pagan that's Calvinists nonsense.

It depends what you mean by free will

What view are you trying to refute? God restrains humans from what humans want to do. Humans are determined to do evil, God didn't determine that, indeed, he created man very good but with the possibility of doing evil. If you mean to refute the Calvinist position, I would recommend brushing up on what Calvinists actually claim. I recommend the Westminster Confession for that, especially chapter 9, which deals with the Calvinist affirmation of human free will, and chapters 3 and 5 which speaks to how it intersects God's decree and providence, respectively.

@@oracleoftroy I am refuting any deterministic position. I am less concerned with using lingo that the calvinists use to try to make their position acceptable, but more concerned with pointing out the logical errors of the system. Slapping "mystery" over logical implications is not acceptable. I am up to snuff on what calvinists claim and believe, I just don't see any need to use their approved lingo. Even if I do, it still doesn't remove the logical implications of the system. WCF, chapter 5, section 1: 1. God, the great Creator of all things, doth uphold,a direct, dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things,b from the greatest even to the least,c by his most wise and holy providence,d according to his infallible fore-knowledgee and the free and immutable counsel of his own will,f to the praise of the glory of his wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and mercy.g That statement disqualifies any rationality for holding that God does not author or cause evil. This is the conundrum that causes calvinists to punt to mystery because the implication is clear. My focus is on the system, not the people.

@@SailingTheologicalSeas_"I am refuting any deterministic position."_ What does this mean to you? Does it include Gen 1? God said "let there be light, and there was light." etc. That's a form of determinism. Is it allowed? Too many people who are against "determinism" don't seem to understand what that entails. Surely you don't think everything is random indeterminism, right? God has some degree of control, no matter how small, right? If anything, if you affirm free will, you have to affirm some degree of determinism, as you are making the claim at minimum that you can determine your own actions in an act of free will. If everything is pure indeterminism, then you can't even do that much. _"I am up to snuff on what calvinists claim and believe, I just don't see any need to use their approved lingo."_ The funny thing is, usually this means you use lingo in very unusual ways, like Leightons "able to respond" definition of 'responsibility'. I don't care if you accept the "Calvinist" definition of words, but if we could agree to use them in ways that any standard dictionary or Biblical lexicon would use it, that would be fine by me. It's hard for me to keep up with the ever shifting definitions anti-Calvinists use. _"That statement disqualifies any rationality for holding that God does not author or cause evil."_ Not at all, you have to insert extra teachings that aren't there to come to that conclusion. Consider the very next section: 2. Although in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the _first cause,_ all things come to pass immutably and infallibly, yet, by the same providence, He ordereth them to fall out _according to the nature of second causes,_ either necessarily, *freely, or contingently.* If your understanding of Calvinism does not allow for free or contingent second causes, you are arguing a strawman. And so, the way we understand God upholding, disposing, and governing all creatures, actions, and things is such that they can still act freely or contingently. Nothing about section 1 demands an interpretation that disallows second 2.

@oracleoftroy The ability to freely act without prior causation is not a form of determinism. Unless you are equivocating the word determinism, of course. Let me clarify: That statement logically disqualifies any rationality for holding that God does not author or cause evil. "Free or contingent" second causes are completely moot on calvinism. All it does is kick the can down the road. God's "second causes" can never be contingent on determinism anyway. If they were, they would have the possibility of not occurring, which is not possible on determinism. And nothing can be done "freely" in a deterministic system either as free would mean uncaused or without "bounding." (Notice I didn't say uninfluenced). Where we differ is here: What calvinists believe ≠ what calvinism entails. I understand that some of my claims are not what calvinists explicitly hold to, but I am fully convinced that the logical implications of their view are such that God becomes the programmer while we are merely doing what He preprogrammed us to do. Anything less is just incontinuity with what logically flows from their theological framework.

@@SailingTheologicalSeas_"The ability to freely act without prior causation is not a form of determinism. Unless you are equivocating the word determinism, of course. "_ That is one particular theory within a broader category of "determinism". Many who oppose Calvinism and "determinism" don't really get into definitions and just use the word haphazardly. So, lets say you choose to eat lunch. There is no causal relationship between you feeling hungry and it being around noon that cause you to choose to eat at that time? You could have just as easily pushed off eating for the next month? What exactly do you mean by "no prior causes"? Because I'm sure you'll immediately see why your choice to eat has many prior causes that influence it. What possible choice can you make that has no prior causes? _"That statement logically disqualifies any rationality for holding that God does not author or cause evil."_ Define "author". God is of course the ultimate cause of evil in the sense that he is the creator and sustainer of the Universe. Presuming you are a Christian, you believe this. There is no one beside God, God and no one else made all things. There is no co-creator or gnostic demiurge you can blame things on, God is the first cause. Yet evil acts through second causes. Evil is man using the very good things God made to oppose God. It is a twisting of the good. Man, not God, authors evil through second causes. Everything God made, as primary cause, he made very good. _""Free or contingent" second causes are completely moot on calvinism. All it does is kick the can down the road."_ How? This sounds like actual confessional Calvinism doesn't agree with your strawman, so you would rather argue against the strawman than the actual position laid out in the confessions as held to by Reformed denominations around the world. _"God's "second causes" can never be contingent on determinism anyway. If they were, they would have the possibility of not occurring, which is not possible on determinism."_ You seem to have two very specific ideas in mind, a view where humans can determine things in an uncaused way, and a view where everything humans do is directly controlled by God. Calvinists reject both these views and in truth, there are very many other options that still fall under the deterministic bucked that aren't those two options. Calvinists aren't hard determinists, and since your critique requires them to be, it fails. Calvinists also reject the alternative you offer. Really, the entire argument hinges on a false dichotomy. _"And nothing can be done "freely" in a deterministic system either as free would mean uncaused or without "bounding." (Notice I didn't say uninfluenced)."_ Merriam Webster: uninfluenced adjective: not affected or altered by an external force : not influenced influence noun: 1: the power or capacity of *causing an effect* in indirect or intangible ways : SWAY influence verb: 1: to affect or alter by indirect or intangible means At this point, I wonder what your issue with Calvinism is. No one thinks God directly manipulates people. He causes them to do things in indirect and intangible ways. But an indirect cause is still a cause. An intangible cause is still a cause. Calling it an "influence" doesn't remove the determinism. It just makes you feel better about holding to determinism. Semantics aside, what you just said is still under the family of determinism, one that accords with Confessional Calvinism. Oh wait, is Merriam Webster one of those "Calvinist" dictionaries you want to avoid? Then pick your own and show me what you mean. But this is exactly what I was just saying, anti-Calvinists use words in very non-standard ways. Blaming Calvinists for using terms in their normal and historic ways is silly. _"What calvinists believe ≠ what calvinism entails."_ In my experience, when an anti-Calvinist says this, it comes across as admitting, "what I need Calvinists to believe is different from what they actually believe, and I don't love Christ enough to obey his commandments to not bear false witness and back up my charges with multiple witnesses. I'd rather lie than argue as a Christian ought." _"I understand that some of my claims are not what calvinists explicitly hold to, but I am fully convinced that the logical implications of their view are such that God becomes the programmer while we are merely doing what He preprogrammed us to do. Anything less is just incontinuity with what logically flows from their theological framework."_ I don't think you can reach that conclusion without ignoring what Calvinists say that contradict the needed premises. You have to pick and choose which doctrines they "really" believe and insert doctrines they reject to reach the conclusion. And so once again, we see an anti-Calvinist argument that can't actually work against the confessional belief Reformed churches actually hold their ministers to, but one that stretches the truth to reach the desired conclusion.

So?

You wish he wouldn’t believe the biblical doctrines of grace? Would you prefer him to be catholic?

Calvinism isn’t biblical. Do you believe God predestined certain men to hell and then turns around and laughs at them?

@@lainie4344 Just curious what you do with 1 Peter 2:8 " 'A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense.' They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do." Or with Romans 9:16-23, or John 1:13 or John 6:65, or dozens of others? I used to believe I had "free" will but the more I studied the Bible, I saw the only way these verses can harmonize with the "free will" verses is through the doctrines of grace. If you're in Christ, you actually want the doctrines of grace. Otherwise, you're relying on good works instead of God to keep you saved, and we know good works have nothing to do with salvation.

⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠@@CT-if2tt1 Peter 2:8 has to do with fulfilled prophecy so yes it was to come to pass by Gods foreknowledge. John 1:13 just means that God is the only one who saves not man. Again in John 6:65 no one can come to God unless God grants them Heaven which would be those with a sincere heart, not the people who say “look at all I’ve done for you now give me heaven” we agree works don’t save anyone. And of course Ramon’s 9:16:23 is simply about man having authority over God. God has ultimate authority and God hardened Pharaohs heart as an answer to prayer. He was the modern Hitler so don’t think Pharaoh was predestined to hell from birth but rather he was give over to his sins. I do not rely on good works, I rely on the promises of God. See Calvinist have no way of knowing if they themselves are saved. James whit even said “idk if I’ll refute the faith later on in life and go to hell” I believe if I repent and believe in Jesus I will go to heaven. None of that is works but it is obedience to Gods command to all men everywhere. That’s how God can have the desire to save all men but not fulfill it. Because He wants something that He commanded but He can’t make us make the decision. But he can set us up perfectly like he did Israel in Isaiah 5:1-4 and give us the best chance to find Him acts 17:26-27

@@lainie4344_"Do you believe God predestined certain men to hell and then turns around and laughs at them?"_ As a Calvinist, no I don't believe that, and I'd avoid anyone who is trying to deceive you into thinking we do believe that. I'd suggest you check out the Reformed confessions for what they actually believe. I recommend the Westminster Confession. At least then you will hear what we actually confess and can agree or disagree as seems right to you.

Lol

Leighton is that you??!!😂

Lol, good one. We’re waiting for Sot101 to actually walk through a text with sound exegesis. He hasnt done it yet.

I think Leighton has done a remarkable job explaining Romans 9 in its full context. He's been a blessing to those of us who do not accept the doctrine of Calvinism. Still a fan of Pastor Jeff and James@@markxivlxii1390

What I wondered about before was "how" or by what "means" did God use to harden Pharaoh's heart? Did he touch or speak, "heart be hardened"? That was my thought. However, now I know that scripture gives us all we need to know and sometimes it's revealed to us. We see in scripture that God sent the plagues on Eygpt and Pharaoh "temporarily" gave up. I believe by this pressure his heart was softened. When God showed kindness and stopped the plague, that's when Pharaoh hardened his heart in Ex. 8:32 or the LORD hardened his heart in Ex. 9:12 I see the same today. When do people 'seek' God? When there's trouble. (Yes, I know about Rom. 3:10-12) When do people ignore God? When all is well.

@AdamsTaiwan Pharaoh was a proud man, and not even plaques were enough to keep him from resisting. This is man, throughout the history of the world, Israel hardened their heart every time Moses gave them commands. The Pharaoh was raised so that we could see how long-suffering he was toward the man fitted to destruction. Romans 9:22 “What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:” Could God not have taken the Pharaoh's life? Yes, of course, He could but He chose to allow him to continue to resist Him, not because the Pharaoh was strong enough to thwart God. Only because God allowed him to, for His praise and glory. I don't know about you but I committed many sins, too many to count, and He never took my life, even though He surely could have. I praise Him for being so gracious toward me and that He never wanted me to perish and now, after 39 years I turned to Him for mercy and I know I am forgiven, as much as I know I don't deserve to be. I am now a vessel of honor, all who are in Christ.

@@MyRoBeRtBaKeR Soli Deo Gloria. Thank you for sharing.

_"...as [Calvinism] denies that God was not sovereign over creation until He created it."_ That's a new one to me. Where does Calvinism claim that? Offhand, that sounds more like Molinism as God has no sovereign authority over the potential humans in potential universes and can only learn of their potential actions through middle knowledge. On Calvinism, God ordains what he does in creation because he is sovereign and intentional about the entire process and his purpose for creating this very universe. _"Calvinism denies God loves everyone in the truest sense because He already chose before the foundation of the world who would spend eternity suffering in the torment of damnation in Hell or eternity in Heaven with Him."_ That sounds more like equal ultimacy, which Calvinism rejects. What is the "truest sense" of love anyway? God removes peoples sins and then sends legally innocent people to hell anyway? Universalism? Not sure where you go with that philosophy. _"Calvinism does away with free will."_ Calvinism probably disagrees with your version of free will, and given how few critics of Calvinism actually can lay out their theory of free will in the first place and treat it as some nebulous thing, they probably have a better defined version of free will than you have. I'd point you to Westminster Confession chapter 9 for the Reformed affirmation of human free will, as well as chapter 3 and 5 for how it interacts with God's decree and providence, respectively. _"Because God predestines people, there is nothing they can do or have done to change any of it."_ They could have just not sinned, then they wouldn't be condemned and wouldn't need predestination unto life. But sinners can't save themselves, they need a savior. Don't begrudge God for being a savior. _"There is no use in praying for friends or family because God allows only the predetermined Elect to be saved and everyone else to be eternally condemned."_ God is the savior, so praying to God for anyone's salvation is the proper thing to do. But on a libertarian free will system, where God's hands are tied by the will of the human, it is better to pray to the person you want saved that they save themselves.

@@oracleoftroy I simply posted what critics have said about Calvinism. My beliefs are not mentioned. Thanks for the reply.

No, those are very much a piece of Calvinism. May I recommend that you read Calvinist confessions rather than follow men like Leighton who don't accurately reflect what Calvinists have actually taught on those matters? The Westminster Confession gives a great overview of the Reformed position. Chapter 9 lays out the Calvinist affirmation of human free will and chapters 3 and 5 speak to how that interacts with God's decree and providence, respectively.

I’ll take the time to read that my bro God bless you, I’ve listened to many many Calvinists I think I have a good understanding of compatibilism, we’re gonna have to agree to disagree. If your position is that difficult to understand, that’s pretty concerning. That being said being as how I am not a Calvinist you can’t fault me it’s been decreed from the foundations of the world. ✝️

Ps. I don’t need leighton flowers to know Calvinism is false

@@Arman_Kaymakcian No, it's pretty easy to understand, it's just much harder to refute it if the argument is based on what we actually confess. People who don't love Jesus enough to obey his commandments, particularly the commandments to present multiple witnesses when bringing a charge against another love lying about our actual position. And sadly, people hear their claims and are taken in by them and never question whether they are accurate. The confessions help set the record straight. I don't care if you agree with my view, but I'd love for everyone who disagrees to do so because of what we actually say, not based on a misrepresentation of our beliefs.

Just out of curiosity what was it I said that is not consistent with Calvinism according the “the confessions” do you believe God decrees everything that takes place in creation both good and evil?

If you compared your position to the Canons of Dort, where do you disagree with the Calvinist position? I ask because people talk about "the Calvinist position" on this or that and often seem to ascribe that label to something explicitly rejected by the Reformed confessions.

@@oracleoftroy I don't compare my position to any man's wisdom. I seek the Kingdom and all I know is what is given to me by God.

@@MyRoBeRtBaKeR Yet you mentioned a position of man... so this reply doesn't seem entirely accurate. I think if you are going to compare to Calvinism, it ought to accurately represent Calvinism. We ought not to lie, right?

@@oracleoftroy You will have to be more specific sir

@@MyRoBeRtBaKeR Did you forget? You mentioned Calvinism. Yet you are unwilling to examine that system before making claims about it, nor are you willing to accept correction. In general, Christians ought to present multiple witnesses when making claims so as to avoid bearing false witness. You compared your position to the Calvinist position yet can't elaborate what that is (total depravity as understood by calvinists is laid out in Dort).

Yep

I agree 100%. A chess player who still controls the board, even while his opponent is free to move his pieces around is way more powerful than a guy moving both sides around like a game of solitaire.

@@obkook7205 I find that analogy awkward. Is God just a man, that he comes to this chess game with its board and rules premade before him, that he learns them and becomes really good at the game? Or is he the creator and sustainer of the game, the very inventor of the rules and game, and the first cause of all things chess? Is God subject to these chess rules, or is he the supreme judge and king of all these rules? I think the analogy doesn't even begin to describe why God is like he is, and seems to present God as more like a Zeus like being, basically a human with superpowers.