Thanks for the questions! We invite you to call in to our weekly broadcast to discuss your thoughts with Greg. He'd love to hear from you. www.str.org/broadcast

Right???

Heresy! :) sounds too biblical and easy to understand

"No one can come to me unless My Father draws him"

@@rocketsurgeon1746 There is nothing biblical about Free Will to Salvation

I just made a video about how one day every knee will bow and every tongue will "openly and joyfully profess, without reservation." I agree with you, but more importantly, so does the Koine Greek New Testament!

You are absolutely right! It is a command just like God commands other impossible things, like the greatest commandment to love Him with all our heart, soul, mind and strength! As the standard of perfection, God commands all sorts of things that He knows are impossible for us to do (holiness, perfection, repentance, faith, etc.).

Bad answer

Wrong. He is wrong. God can have a will and in that will is the free will of the creature. This makes more sense in every area than a bipolar god

@@rocketsurgeon1746 I can cite chapter, verse, and Greek word to reason from scripture to position. It sounds like you start with the conclusion (unlimited free will) and reason in a circle. Would you care to elaborate and dispel my suspicion? By your reasoning, if you want to eat ice cream but refrained from doing so because you want to maintain your weight (or any other reason), you are bipolar. Your rhetorical use of the term ‘bipolar’ is uncalled for.

@@ricksonora6656 funny analogy 😂 what is the equivalent in your analogy to wanting to avoid weight? Is it bad for ALL to be saved like love handles? would it affect God in a negative way to say all via calv election? We both have access to scripture and greek my friend.

@@rocketsurgeon1746 Why, when I suspect that you eisegete rather than exegete, do reply about access? The right weight is a matter of balance and purpose. A rock climber or marathon runner would see your bringing up love handles as hyperbole. One analogy to avoiding ice cream would be a desire to demonstrate holiness, righteous judgment, and justice. Another, from your perspective, would be refraining from violating free will. Here’s a logical consequence of your comment: It “would affect Gods in a negative way” if He doesn’t save everyone. He doesn’t. So, God is affected in a negative way. Your argument implies an assumption that something that affects God in a negative way must be untrue. Have you ever heard of the Cross? It further implies that, to avoid being affected negatively, God must save all. Are you a Universalist? And if you are a Universalist, doesn’t that mean God violates the free will of those who reject salvation? Advice: Your reasoning is a can of worms. Learn to spell out arguments positively instead of posing rhetorical questions. It will help you identify assumptions, tangents, and illogical consequences.

@@ricksonora6656 but what was the cross for? To be a negative or positive? Though it was graphic, it was the greatest gift ever so ALL could be saved :) Is universalism the only option you see to your stance? What if an omnipotent, omniscient God decided to give free will to His creatures so He knew who really loved Him? Is your god sovereign enough to do that?

How easy. Must be heresy! Jk Thanks :)

In that case, God has ZERO desire that most be saved. He created them for the purpose of eternal damnation. Loving God? Contradiction? Hm...

Obviously God has his purposes in saving some but we cant fathom his overall plan.as he gave people freewill to choose their path in life Salvation is a gift to the few he has chosen but their is a price to pay Giving up certain things and being despised and rejected as jesus was Not all are willing to walk the narrow road! Many prefer the broad road with its fame and wealth and other pleasures!

@@jessebryant9233 right?? Wow!.. Might as well command a new-born baby to run a marathon but since the infant CANNOT even CRAWL he/she will be thrown into fire to burn FOREVER because God did not enable them to do what He commanded them to do in the first place. Calvinism is stupid and makes God a monster and scripture is clear that God is not a monster or evil. We wouldn’t do that AND we are SINNERS!! How much less would God NOT DO THAT?? God is the Savior of ALL,especially those who believe. 1Timothy 4:10!!

@@angloaust1575 Your position calls God a liar. (Ezekiel 33:11, 2 Peter 3:9) As for "free-will", well, God either determines things or he does not. You can't have it both ways. As for your other comments, you're just talking wheat and tears, bud. But thanks for stating the obvious. Many have a form of godliness...

So it isn' the reprobate's fault? Makes sense in calvinism

Well evidently you do not understand the Calvinist view, since that is the BIBLICAL view. This verse, 1 Timothy 2:4 is not a universal salvation verse. You need to start reading at verse one and go all the way to verse six. Verse two defines who the ALL MEN are: KINGS AND THOSE WHO ARE IN AUTHORITY.

These are the snipes at each other that turn people off. Was there a way to get this point across without so curt a response?

@@alihoussney7870thanks for your loving kindness and understanding in your response. We can be better than this. There is much better ways to have a conversation than speaking from such a righteous point of view, I assure you. It’s also a biblical view Jesus warned very harshly against self righteousness

@@unclepauliestl whatever you do, do not read verses out of context.

@Alex-dx5fq more self righteous Calvinist’s venom! Thanks for being a kind brother to your fellow believers. It’s not calvanism that destroys your pride my friend. It’s the gospel. That’s biblical.

What id God desires us to have free will to make a true choice?

Oh be quiet, you do not understand Calvinism. The Calvinistic view matches perfectly with what Greg says in this video.

Be quiet cause that makes too much sense. I prefer to blame God for my sins and decisions to rebel :)

@@alihoussney7870 the problem is, we do understand calv. That is why we reject it. God isn't bipolar. Free will given by God is the perfect answer

@@rocketsurgeon1746 calvinism is the gospel. Free will is derived from paganism.

@@alihoussney7870 read ez18, brother. It is clear that the wicked can become righteous and the righteous can become wicked. All based on their will. Ez18:21But if a wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed, keeps all My statutes, and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. Ez18:24 But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and does according to all the abominations that the wicked man does, shall he live? All the righteousness which he has done shall not be remembered

lol

Thanks for the question Brooks. STR believes there are answers available, but not every question can be answered. This recent podcast may help. See Greg and Amy's answer to "How would you respond to someone who doesn’t see how Jesus could be God and wants every question answered before he can fully commit to believing Christianity is true?" www.str.org/w/-strask-how-can-i-keep-from-looking-legalistic-on-social-media- We invite you to call in to our weekly broadcast to discuss your thoughts with Greg Koukl. He'd love to hear from you. Or you can submit an #STRask question. Visit www.str.org/broadcast for details.

@@STRvideos : I was unable to access the podcast. And I get the impression you are simply brushing off my questions instead of trying to find out what they are. Why, then, would I want to join your religion?

Everything is in God's timing. But in the meantime, continue to pray about it, and prepare your heart. Sounds like you are heading in the correct direction. I was almost 46 years old before my eyes were opened.

@farmboy5622 : after the seven years of research I spent 40 years talking to Christians. If Jesus wants me to become a Christian why hasn't He arranged for me to meet someone who will convince me?

@@brooksellis3891 I don't think you listened to a word I said. Go back and read my answer. Are you trying to be in control, or are you going to allow God to be in control??? It is our human nature to want everything now. We hate being told to wait.

Right around the 3:25 mark, he talked about why Christian Universalism (that all will be saved) is not the case. To add to that, Revelation 20:15 says: And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

TRUTH! God saves ALL. Why do people hate this message?

the highly symbolic imagery in Revelation like Lake of fire & second death as well as other expressions like gehenna fire etc, can easily be interpreted in harmony with universal salvation. After all, the carnal mind (flesh) must be destroyed. So obviously those that do not make the cut as the elect (many are called few are chosen...) will suffer great loss and will be subject to punishment and ruin but God still promises that in the end He will destroy sin and save all humans. The Scriptures that affirm universal salvation (the big picture of God's plan) are numerous and plainly stated. The only way to avoid contradictions is to interpret all the "judgement" Scriptures as the temporary means used by God to accomplish His ultimate will (to save all).

John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

@@AlpacaLipps People hate the message for lots of reasons. I don’t like it because it requires bad hermeneutics to fall for it, it makes God unjust, and it violates the free will of those who choose to reject salvation.

So, free will given by a sovereign God?

?

@@heartofalegend Souls are judged “according to their deeds” at the upcoming Judgment Seat of Christ and White Throne Judgment, That shows that there HAS to be free will, for souls to be responsible for their actions, otherwise having varying degrees of reward or punishment would be impossible. If our actions were predetermined, why have judgment? They would be Kangaroo courts and God would be unjust, which is not possible. If God made us in His image, wouldn’t He pass on free will, also? Would He make free will an illusion?

@@jayahladas692 I would respectfully disagree. There's just too many scriptures stating that God changes our hearts at His good pleasure and that faith in Him is His doing, independent of our will. Folks just can not accept this. For some reason, they just assume that it can not be true, and won't allow the God of Scripture to be who He is. Your argument is EXACTLY what Paul deals with in Romans 9. "God. how can you judge me for something YOU are responsible for?" It's trying to subject God to human wisdom instead of the other way around. These types of objections have been answered scores of times over the centuries with clear biblical reasoning, but folks bring it up as if they've discovered something new. There is real depth to this topic that requires folks to resist their "knee jerk" tendencies and really look at what God has to say about Himself in both the Old and New Testament. I encourage you to not dismiss great teachers like Calvin, Spurgeon, Whitfield, Edwards, and Sproul out of hand, but rather to allow their arguments a fair hearing. Challenge yourself to identify where they have contradicted the overall testimony of Scripture, regarding the nature of God, the nature of man, and the nature and work of Christ. It's worth praying about, brother. Blessings.

@@heartofalegend The dichotomy between the free will and predeterminism has gone on for centuries, back to Augustine and beyond, and will continue, I am sure. I also see so many instances in scripture of man's directive of responsibility to decide: believe, trust, choose, have faith, accept, whosoever, repent, etc. God being outside of time, I don't see how the two perspectives can be reconciled this side of heaven. I just trust God that both are true and leave it in His hands to resolve. I do think that much of the difference in views is from not properly separating the definite sovereignty used by God in his purposes for elect Israel (As you can see in Rom9) from that of personal salvation. I still don't see how the degrees of "according to their deeds" can be fairly judged if all free choices one makes is not taken into account, and why "in his image" would not include free will, but just be a devious "illusion". One day we'll know. Let God be true. Maranatha

2 Peter 3:9 "The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance." is 'any' not directly referring to 'all' here?

@@bjornegan6421 Kjv says usward referring to the elect But we dont know who the elect are So all are commanded to repent!

@@angloaust1575 i don't know what you are trying to say about 'usward'. i'm saying 'all' obviously does not mean 'all sorts of people', in reference to 'not just confined to one race', as you put it because in that verse we see 'all' related to 'any'. 'any' doesn't fit in your thought of 'all' referring to 'all races'. all being commanded to repent is irrelevant as far as whether we knew who the elect are.

@@bjornegan6421 I think both Greg Koukl and James White do a good job in dealing with this passage. Again, one can hold the reformed view and simply see the words "not wishing" the same as desiring, as Greg was talking about. However, both Koukl and White point out that there's also an argument to be made from the text that Peter is addressing the church directly, from start to finish. God's promise to who? Us. God's patience toward who? Us. All of who? All of Us. It's consistent. God is being very patient, waiting to bring all of his sheep into the sheepfold, so that none of them perish, as Jesus promised. It's a very reasonable argument to make, just following the consistent flow of the text.

​@@faelor03 Frank, have you not read the myriad of commentaries and lectures dedicated to explaining what passages like this mean? They don't just merely assert something. They explain it, as well, and none of them try to suggest that "whole world" doesn't mean whole world. Rather they make the case that in contemporary evangelicalism, there is a hasty assumption being made that "whole world" automatically means every single human being in history- past, present, and future. They make the case that this assumption is an emotional leap, rather than an exegetical one that arises from the overall testimony of Scripture. I tend to agree, based on the reasons people give. The doctrine of definite or ACTUAL atonement seems to provoke a visceral response of disgust, even before it's explained. And in that state of disgust, the offended party immediately goes looking for verses that seem to suggest it can't be true. But when those verses are shown by the reformed believer to not be the "silver bullet" they think, the reformed believer is accused of reading something into them, as if the passage is to be understood as automatically supporting the provisionist point of view, by default. That's an erroneous assumption. The same accusation could just as easily be leveled at the provisionist. What breaks the tie is what doctrinal system allows the overall testimony of Scripture to hold together most harmoniously. I contend it is the position that the atonement doesn't just make a provision of atonement for every single soul in the history of the world, but rather ACTUALLY atones perfectly for everyone for whom it was made. When God's wrath was removed from us, that was IT. It was removed. Jesus took it. That can't be true for everyone, because many in Hell will experience the same wrath that Jesus supposedly already experienced on their behalf. So God punishes His son AND those in hell? He pours out His wrath toward the condemned sinner TWICE? This is what you're left with when you embrace provisionism. However, if you believe the biblical teaching that Jesus' atonement was a perfecting work that actually SAVES forever those for whom it was made, then clearly that can't apply to everyone. But for some reason, this really upsets folks and they go scrambling for verses that support a theological framework that results in conundrums like the one that I just laid out, and there are others, as well. That said, Christ and the apostles were consistently reminding His disciples that Jesus wasn't just the Savior of the Jews or the Gentiles or this group of people or that group of people or this nation or that nation. He was the savior of EVERY tribe, tongue, and nation in every corner of the globe. That's all that John is saying here. He's echoing similar statements made by Jesus, Paul and Peter. Perfectly reasonable, perfectly consistent with Scripture, once again demonstrating the beauty and harmony of the teachings of Christ and the apostles. I find it sad that believers hate the idea that the cross actually SAVES. They just can't stand that we play no part in that. Somehow, we have to take part of the credit. Pride doesn't die after regeneration, that's for sure.

Yes, he would. Christ's blood can take away the sins of ANYONE who comes to Him in faith and repentance. But Hitler committed suicide so I am not so sure he repented and had faith before he died.

How does one possibly respond to that well-reasoned objection?

Maybe you could explain?

Amen, contrary to scripture. Calvinism is another theological attack on the nature of God

Any Calvinists here? Quick question, do you have freewill?

@@twaho the question is not “do you have any free will.” Of course we do. The question is, “How free is your will?”

I believe calvinism is an attack on the nature of God

….. the disgraceful doctrines …..Augustine and his echo man John Calvin do not reflect Jesus Christ , Gods son. These 2 certainty are categorized by 2 Corinthians 11:12-15….. think not? both purported babies in hell…., you really think Jesus Christ , Gods son, is glorified by this??….. disgraceful , abhorrent , nothing like the savior Jesus. Lord have mercy!

@@truthseeker5698 Folks who embrace reformed doctrine don't necessarily agree with everything Augustine or Calvin taught. To throw out everything I mentioned in my previous post because of this sideshow you decided to fixate upon, is lazy. I couldn't care less what Calvin or Augustine believed about babies in hell. I only care what the whole of Scripture teaches about the character of God, the purpose of evil, and what Christ accomplished on the cross. Whether or not I get it is irrelevant. All I want to know is what the whole of Scripture teaches. Any disciple of Christ should echo those words.

@@heartofalegend and the god of reformed theology, calvinism etc, when brought to its conclusion, looks more like materialism or Allah than Jesus Christ. Sideshow?fixate? lol, you're funny. but you believe you have no choice, so determined you are. What a way to live .....

@@heartofalegend I couldn't care less what Calvin or Augustine believed about babies in hell........yet your reformed? calvinist? and the very spring of this comes from Augustine, and John Calvin , Answer the question, Do you really think Jesus Christ would be glorified by babies in hell?? Step up and answer if you're willing....., I mean if God has willed you to.......trying to meet you where you are.......lol

This is probably useless, but for what it's worth, I'll ask. Where are you getting this idea of God forcing something on us?

@@heartofalegend Calvinisim

@@twaho You're either lying or self-deceived. You didn't read anything or hear anything from Calvin, Knox, Whitfield, Owen, Spurgeon or Sproul or any other reputable reformed theologian that said what you're claiming. You my friend have drunk someone's Kool-Aid. Don't misrepresent reformed theology. Whether it's Calvinism or Arminianism, there needs to be a civil discourse and honest representation of the position you're attempting to refute. You don't seem capable or willing to do that. That needs to change.

@@heartofalegend Was it God's will for Adam to deceive and does God, according to calvinistic rheology, predestinate people to hell without choice?

I believe such doctrines are heresy, an attack on the nature of God diminishing of God's mercy and grace to 'all'.

are you sure you aren't coming at both of your points with a presupposition and bias? well, we all do for most things, but that's not what i mean. I'm going to attempt to answer both of your points. This isn't me saying YOU'RE WRONG, it's me providing reasoning behind the points that you say don't stand scrutiny that I think do stand scrutiny. it 'seems' to me that what you are alleging is illogical. 1) God does not protect anyone from their choice on 'whether to receive salvation'. instead, we all have chosen, in our natural state, dead, to not choose salvation. the Bible explicitly says, 1 Corinthians 2:14: " But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.". So, i'd ask you, what is a 'natural man', and what is the 'other' kind of man, if there is one? well, what is default? is the natural man that which is 'natural'? as in, default, standard, in accordance with its character, etc. is it natural for the natural man to be natural? i am just trying to expand on what 'natural' means. so, is every human born in a 'natural' state? what does that mean? does it not mean one who is spiritually dead? does one who is spiritually dead seek God? can he? is this what John 3 is about? that 'you must be born again'? i'm going to continue assuming the answers that we're all spiritually dead naturally. we all choose sin. we deny God and seek sin, naturally. we are sin because we ARE sinners, not we are sinners because we sin. only a sinner can sin. it is natural for a sinner to sin, it is not natural for a sinner to not sin. so how does one who is an enemy of God, one who loves sin and hates God, one who is dead spiritually come to be alive spiritually and go from hating God and loving sin to loving God and hating sin? how does that person go from not accepting the things of the Spirit of God, to thinking the cross is foolishness, to accepting the things of God and the cross being the power of God (1 Corinthians 1:18). It seems that something must change. can we do that ourselves? the Bible says no, so if you say yes, you must prove it with Scripture. So, building off all that, it is not God protecting anyone from 'their choice', as you suggested. which i cannot comprehend where you would get such an idea. It is God overriding the natural choice of a man to not choose God and instead choose sin. None seek after God. if it was not for this 'election', or 'predestination', none would choose God, would they? could they? 2) you are redefining the phrase 'common sense'. i'd say you are redefining 'predestined' as well. it's interesting to go from a specific word with a specific meaning, to then apply the concept you are suggesting to then redefine words in order to dismiss the meaning of them and ignore the context in which they are found. How does your concept work with very distinct verses such as Acts 13:48?

@@bjornegan6421 1) Having read and re-read your answer, it seems you missed the point... ie. God's perspective and man's perspective. In a real sense you are right that man's natural state is to choose sin and not choose salvation. The acceptance of salvation involves two parts.... i) God's revelation ii) Man's acceptance of that revelation. How else do we explain that not all are being saved and yet "he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." If man plays no part in the acceptance of salvation because he is predestined then why is God who is all powerful and wishes all to come to repentance unable to do so? 1Co 2:14.. is written from man's perspective and more specifically from a man who has received the Spirit, and I think the implication is clear. i.e. that the person who has received the Spirit, received it! We cannot have the Spirit UNLESS we receive the Spirit. ..but let's be even more specific.... any man who truly desires to know God will in some measure repent of their sin and accept the need of a Savior and thence receive the revelation of the full measure of sin, the full measure of the price paid and the full knowledge that Christ is Lord. Again how else do we explain God's desire that none be lost yet some are lost... (through their choice) 2) Redefining the phrase "common sense". Actually I'm not! Many writers way before me having argued that the term has changed away from the reality that it is formed of two words "common" and "sense". Let's put it this way. On the spectrum of sense, with "no sense" being one extreme and "ultra sense" being the other, where does "common sense" lie? The way the term is mostly used it's synonymous with "ultra sense".. i.e the highest form of sense. Frankly, that is self-evidently non-sense, not least because the term is used so commonly by people who cannot even aspire to having "ultra sense". Acts 13:48. If you're going to use the simple English translation and cling to the word "anoint" then you are going to struggle with reconciling predestination with various scriptures. However, if you examine the actual word used here "tassō" you'll see that it does not easily translate to "annont". 1 Corinthians 16:15 for example shows it is translated as "devoted". Irrespective, even if we accept the terminology that suggests believers were "appointed", it's easily explained. EVERYONE who chose had the right heart/attitude was "anointed" and everyone who didn't wasn't. It was their choice whether to have the right heart/attitude or not... as evidenced by the Jews who didn't. Isn't that the whole context and purpose of Acts 13. Let's put it this way, I think the inference is clear, that if the Jews had had the right heart/attitude then they would have been saved and thus "anointed"

@@lwdcourt where does a man get the desire to know God? you did redefine common sense. using what 'writers' say about it is irrelevant. Acts 13:48 When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.

@@bjornegan6421 Now you're getting ridiculous Where does a man get ANY desire, good or evil? Pray show us where the 'official' definition of PHRASES is to be found so that I may see when it was first defined! I explained Acts 13... did you not read or you just want to stick with simple but flawed English translations?

@@lwdcourt i'm not sure why you are using the word 'anoint'

Do not take those verses out of context. Neither one of them supports universal salvation.

@@alihoussney7870 - You are correct! These verses of truth do not support universal salvation. Then by no means am I presenting them in that way! They are presented simply as they are! Yet, our Bibles are a full narrative of what God has gifted us in His Word and word! Jesus Himself said this: " I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man can come to the Father but by Me. " John 14:6...... yet, it gets even narrower than this because of these words Christ also taught: " For this reason I have said to you; " No one can come unto Me unless it has been granted him from the Father." John 6:65. Then Christ gave us this bold statement: " Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide, and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and many are those who enter by it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and few are those who find it." Matthew 7:13-14. God does desire for all to come to repentance and then belief in His only begotten Son. Yet, God has determined, because He loves us, that will be a choice we all make because we desire relationship with He and His Son Jesus above all else. Religion will only deceive you into being satisfied with religion. Christ's promise is to give us life, and that life more abundant. John 10:10 b.

@@alihoussney7870 - Yesssss...... whosoever will throw off all else; religion, tradition, themselves, their own worldly desires, for the chance and opportunity to " Know " God through Christ "! Jesus prayed this: " This is eternal life, that they may know You the only true God and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. " John 17:3. " Know " here is the Greek word Ginosko meaning to gain personal knowledge in an ever deepening relationship with God through Christ coupled with the confirming knowledge of scripture truth. Always Both/And never Either/Or.

@@alihoussney7870 universalism isn't the only other option. Think it thru. A sovereign God that allows for free will of the creature shows far more love, power and blameworthiness

@@paulrivalto1974 thank you! Not sure how else we can clearly refute calvinism