Yep this is exactly right. Sovereignty does not require complete control over those being reigned and, quite honestly, would really call into question the lovingness of God if we were all robots without wills to choose. This is one of the main issues with Calvinism

Couldn’t have said it better.

Yes! And God sovereignly giving agents choice doesn’t mean unlimited choices. In some situations, there may be very few choices at all, much less good ones. It’s more like chess where you might have a lot of options one minute and only a few viable moves the next, and God in His infinite genius is able to make literally any outcome He wants no matter what you freely do. Not only that, but the cards we’re dealt so to speak aren’t random, “Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was provoked within him when he saw that the city was given over to idols. Therefore he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and with the Gentile worshipers, and in the marketplace daily with those who happened to be there. Then certain Epicurean and Stoic philosophers encountered him. And some said, ‘What does this babbler want to say?’ Others said, ‘He seems to be a proclaimer of foreign gods,’ because he preached to them Jesus and the resurrection. And they took him and brought him to the Areopagus, saying, ‘May we know what this new doctrine is of which you speak? For you are bringing some strange things to our ears. Therefore we want to know what these things mean.’ For all the Athenians and the foreigners who were there spent their time in nothing else but either to tell or to hear some new thing. Then Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, ‘Men of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are very religious; for as I was passing through and considering the objects of your worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Therefore, the One whom you worship without knowing, Him I proclaim to you: God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. Nor is He worshiped with men’s hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things. _And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, “For we are also His offspring.”_ Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man’s devising. _Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.’_ And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked, while others said, ‘We will hear you again on this matter.’ So Paul departed from among them. However, some men joined him and believed, among them Dionysius the Areopagite, a woman named Damaris, and others with them.“ ‭‭ ~Acts‬ ‭17‬:‭16‬-‭34‬

Any analogy breaks down in light of God's transcendence and omnipotence, but yes you hit the nail on the head for what sovereignty means.

Well, you beat me to it. 😂 this is exactly how I believe

Came to same conclusion. Our western rational worldview makes it hard to accept that you can't reconcile 2 irreconcilable positions. But God can. It's humbling, and freeing to realise you can't put it in a box or 5 point systems.

Sure. The Bible is clear that He hardens and softens hearts. From Exodus to Romans, the Bible states this.

I agree with you. My own conversion almost three years ago (being a false convert before this) felt both like I had to make a decision, mixed with God dragging me kicking and screaming to the point where I couldn't say no.

Just read the Exodus this week....the hardening in that instance was not about salvation.

@@hagenjunger2914 irreconcilable from our perspective. but I completely agree.

That assumes that God’s decisions are arbitrary, simply because they are beyond the realm of our understanding.

@@gigahorse1475arbitrary just means that it’s up to his personal discretion and choice and no other reason

@Adam_Wilde Gigahorse is correct, but aside from that, Calvinism traditionally does not negate secondary causes. What this means is that, rather than falling in line with something like Islamic Fatalism, Calvinism does not eradicate the idea of human freedom, but instead allows for human freedom to exist alongside divine sovereignty. So instead of God predetermining every single action of every person, he foresees all actions that will be made out of human wills (secondary causes) and ordains them to happen, in accordance with His good will that our God-given free wills not be trampled on or overridden. Now, when it comes to salvation, because of post-fall human depravity, God must directly intervene to illumine the nous of each individual whom He had deemed His own (which choice is not arbitrary), as only an encounter with the divine can unveil the clouded nous of fallen man. In Calvinism, this is known as the noetic effect of sin, by which, through choosing with our free wills to deviate from the good, the sensus divinitatus (sense of divinity [Latin]) is tainted yet still present in man. Now, I have my own problems with Calvinism, but I still appreciate it and hope that all people who oppose it will do so with informed and sincere arguments, rather than coming at it with an army of straw men.

But whether I knew his reasoning or not has nothing to do with his choice, so my understanding of it is functionally irrelevant to what he already predetermined for me to understand before the beginning of time.

@@Adam_Wilde did you even read my response? The whole point is that, in Calvinism, God does not determine all actions, so whether you believe in Calvinism or not is your choice, not His (Calvinsim is not opposed to the doctrine of free will). Human wills are called secondary causes of actions, whereas God is the first cause of all things, as He is the eternal generator of all things.

Good reply. This man is a professional fence sitter. That's the whole point of his channel, to try to justify as many views as possible and be as agreeable as possible. The problem is when that's you're focus you give up the line between truth and falsehood. Truth doesn't unite. Tolerance unites. Enough of it will unite the whole world in falsehood. Truth divides those who believe it and those who don't.

​@@r.rodriguez4991SO TRUE... That's what I thought too, but you expressed yourself much better than I ever could.

Sovereignty versus micromanagement. That's a really great way to put it.

@@tonn333 I'm glad you think so because I wasn't sure it was going to make sense to others. 😅

@huntsman528 Your comment is so wrong! David was not sovereing over Israel, God was. The Bible indeed talks about "micromanagement". Sovereignity means to have control over something. The Bible says that all decision are from God (Proverbs 16:33). The Bible says that God will save those who believe, but the question is who will believe? The Bible also says that the predestined for salvation will believe (Romans 9, John 6, Ephesians 1). We don't have free will to choose salvation because we're dead spirirtually (Genesis 2:27) and no one searches God (Romans 3:11), and there is a inabiblity of men to come to God (John 6:44). The verse you used that God does't want anyone to perish is to the elect alone, not everyone. 2 Peter 1:1 says "To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours". So, that means Peter is adressing the elect not every single person. Nowhere in Genesis says that Cain can do good and be accepted by God. Where is that in Genesis 4? God controls wills. Didn't God control and interfere in Pharoah's will?

“If the sun were the proper cause of cold and darkness, it would be the fountain of these things, as it is the fountain of light and heat: and then something might be argued from the nature of cold and darkness, to a likeness of nature in the sun.” In other words, “sin is not the fruit of any positive agency or influence of the most High, but on the contrary, arises from the withholding of his action and energy, and under certain circumstances, necessarily follows on the want of his influence.”

I find that there are a lot of passages in Scripture which, at the very least, really stretch our understanding of the statements you made. "And the Lord said to Moses, ‘When you go back to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders I have put in your power, but I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go." (Exodus 4:21) "But King Sihon of Heshbon was not willing to let us pass through, for the Lord your God hardened his spirit and made his heart defiant in order to hand him over to you, as He has now done." (Deuteronomy 2:30) "But they would not listen to the voice of their father, for it was the will of the Lord to kill them." (1 Samuel 2:25; about Eli's wicked sons refusing to listen to his warnings) There's Micaiah's prophecy in 1 Kings 22 and 2 Chronicles 18 "The king said to him, ‘Have we made you a royal counselor? Stop! Why should you be put to death?’ So the prophet stopped but said, ‘I know that God has determined to destroy you because you have done this and not listened to my advice.’" (2 Chronicles 25:16) "I form light and create darkness, I make success and create disaster; I, Yahweh, do all these things." (Isaiah 45:7; interesting to note, the KJV says "I create evil," in place of disaster, and I faintly remember reading something from the CSB translators regarding "evil" being the literal translation of that word, though I invite you to fact check that) God has also taken away people's sanity from time to time (such as Nebuchadnezzar) as well as intentionally concealing things from people's understanding, thus creating confusion (as is also seen at the Tower of Babylon). There's more, but I think those are adequate for conveying my point. It's undeniable that God takes full credit for these things, therefore we need to reconcile how God can be perfectly just and righteous, while simultaneously (and undeniably) hardening people's hearts so that they refuse obedience, creating darkness and disaster (or evil), "strips understanding from the leaders of the earth," and admits that, "the deceived and the deceiver are His." (Job 12:24, 16) Is it that God is truly unjust and unrighteous? Is that His word is deceptive and can't be accepted without us altering its words to find His true character? Or is it that our understanding of true righteousness and justice is limited, and we don't comprehend the depth of God's goodness and wisdom? Or perhaps I'm missing something.

@@matthewspruill3560 This. A million times. Sin is not the presence of God's will, but the absence of His grace - which is not owed to any one of us .... But for the cross.

God created the universe. The universe has sin. He knew it would contain sin before He made it. Calvinism is not your problem. Reality is.

And, even if you were, there’s no way of knowing if you have real regenerative grace or evanescent grace, where God ceases the process of regeneration so seeming believers can fall away (or, more likely, that Calvin needed an ad hoc rescue).

The guy who admitted to have an inconsistent exegesis when it comes to passage of Scripture supporting Calvinism? I used to listen to Leighton as I was evaluating the more biblically faithful view. I was still an Arminian back then. But during his Romans 9 debate with James White, he openly admitted that he doesn't follow the classic approach to exegesis when it comes to passages supporting Doctrines of Grace. That to me was a turn-off, which actually led me to studying the word, eventually leaned more to Calvinistic understanding.

Leighton is one of worse guys you could have try to argue against Calvinism.

@@glassworks4850 how does not following the classic approach on something make him inconsistent? You are appealing to authority, not addressing his actual position.

I think Leighton would point to Brian Abasciano is a leading Arminian thinker today.

Leighton Flowers is stuck in first stage thinking. He doesnt know how to reason clearly, and would be a waste of time on the TU channel.

I’ve never thought of demons as influencing this decision over free will vs determinism. I would say it all comes down to influence vs control. Many things influence us, but that simply narrows our options. We always have options, and we are the ones in control. If this were not the case, then we would not be to blame for our decisions, making ours an unjust God. Often, for me it comes down to the justness of God and the deservedness of our punishments. This seems to necessitate free will and the responsibility for our decisions being ours

@@TheChadPad I think you’re essentially arguing from consequences rather than from subject. That is arguing that demon’s can’t “control” us because that would make us irresponsible, thus making God unjust. Firstly, justice is whatever God does classically speaking. God isn’t just because He perfectly abides by a moral standard outside of Himself. Secondly, demon possession is more than influence or narrowing of possibilities. Just read the story of the demon possessed man in Mathew 8:28 who lived in caves and attacked passerby’s and cut himself. Idk how someone would make a case for autonomy and libertarian freewill from that. Especially contrasting his radical transformation following the exorcism. Thirdly, determining blameworthiness is 100% God’s job as judge. In the same way I wouldn’t opine on how a Supreme Court Justice should have condemned a criminal, I wouldn’t try to do that with the judge of the universe.

@@ElvisI97 you’re putting the cart before the horse in your definition of justice. Of course, the standard of justice comes from God’s actions. He does not follow our laws of justice. But our sense of justice comes from mimicking God’s actions. If they did not look the same, our sense of justice would be nonsensical. Justice is punishment for whom it’s due, and that comes from God. His moral law does not come from us. He sets it and we follow it. To say, then, that God is just only if he punishes based on merit does not mean I am saying He is following a law imposed on Him. He set the law by His nature. In any case, we can see from the Bible that God does punish justly, and in this case, it should be no different.

@@ElvisI97 truly, then, all this means for me is that, though demon possession can usurp autonomy, God will not punish us severely for what we do under the influence of such demons. That maintains His justness. It would not be right for Him to punish us for what we have no choice but to do

@@TheChadPad “the cart before the horse” language sounds awfully similar to the Leighton Flowers’ rhetorical style. I used to listen to him 4-5 years ago. However, it doesn’t have sufficient explanatory power of texts of scripture that clearly shows very little concern for honouring libertarian free will like our modern western minds would. I wouldn’t say our moral requirements are *entirely* identical to God’s because we have a creature to Creator distinction. The Creator universally has full rights to do as he or she pleases with their creation. Like an artist with their painting or a potter with their clay. This is why God can smite down innocent children by His own choice while humans cannot. In other words there are things God can do that would not constitute sin, but would if humans did it.

Then they ran into a Jew who questioned them on the nature of Jesus and they couldn't give an answer because they hadn't thought too deeply about what they believed. The message of the Gospel is simple, but there's a whole lot more that we can learn as we grow in our faith and study God's word, and there's nothing wrong with that either. All that said, you're still absolutely correct that these things shouldn't get in the way of the Gospel itself.

​@@wesleydahar7797well said, man

The zeroth Christian is an apophatic theologian. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/fLJiYJZh2sXHXZc.htmlsi=1xLGbcR3zRKVf8-b

Calvinism vs Arminianism “The truth does lie in one extreme; neither does it lie in the other extreme. Much less does it lie in the middle. The truth lies in both extremes held at the same time. Leaving those parallel lines without trying to join them saying,”they will never meet in my mind; parrallel lines meet only in infinity. Only an infinite all wise God can explain how he sovereignly chooses people and how he gives man free will to choose, I cannot explain it.”

1 Corinthians 11:18-19 (ESV) 18 For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part, 19 for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.

But Calvinists should not be discipling people. I know three Calvinists, that committed suicide, exercising their free will!

​@@jjphank Why shouldn't Calvinists be discipling people? You do realize that people just like also think that you are wrong right? It's childish to simply say "you're wrong".

@@wesleydahar7797 because I can prove Calvinism is wrong real easy! Ephesians. One and Romans nine predestination Hass to do with groups, not individuals. Ephesians one “us and we are predestined“ not “you and I“ & 11× in 11 verses, you have to be in Christ to go to heaven. “In Christ “, in him”, “in whom “! Romans nine Paul starts talking about the nation of Israel, wishing he could be cut off, so Paul was not preaching predestination because you cannot be cut off. “Jacob I loved, and Esau I hated” is genesis 25:23 “there are two nations in your womb” you have to keep it in context he’s not talking about individuals all the way to chapter 12! This rhymes with the verses that say, god wants all men to be saved and hell was created for the devil and his angels Matthew 25:41! Any questions on that let me know I agree if we’re in the field witnessing to Muslims or whatever like I was doing with Calvinists, don’t bring up the subject just focus on the gospel message, but you cannot let a Calvinist disciple somebody !

@@wesleydahar7797 because Romans nine & Ephesians one have to deal with the predestination of groups or nations or plurals, never individuals look at the language. Ephesians. 1 “you and I“ it doesn’t say that, it says “we and us“ are predestined. Romans nine Jacob, I loved Esau I hated is Genesis 25:23 there are two nations in your womb. You have to keep in context, paul is starting with in Romans nine: one - five the nation of Israel. This goes with all the other Bible verses where God wants everybody to be saved !

I understand that. Being a non calvinist in a reformed church has helped me realise my initial understanding of calvinism was inaccurate. But in the end, being faithful to scripture should lean you more towards one way, whilst knowing that the system you lean towards, has flaws. And we cannot understand it as some things only God can know. In the West, we've lost a sense of mystery and sacred, and replaced it with logic and rationality.

@@hagenjunger2914 I'm committed to faithfully following to the word of God, and that's precisely why I feel this way. But every day I see objections to and supposed flaws in Calvinism fall away. It looks more and more scripturally consistent the more I read the Bible. I might never be convinced of it in its entirety, but I have yet to see anything that can't be resolved. I haven't even been diving into it deliberately. It just keeps coming up as I read about other topics.

@@PhrenicosmicOntogeny I hear you. And calvinism makes sense logically. But it can't answer all the questions. I'm encouraged that even Spurgeon later in his life acknowledged that:. "My love of consistency with my own doctrinal views is not great enough to allow me knowingly to alter a single text of Scripture. I have great respect for orthodoxy, but my reverence for inspiration is far greater. I would sooner, a hundred times over, appear to be inconsistent with myself [referring to his Calvinism] than be inconsistent with the word of God. I never thought it to be any very great crime to seem inconsistent with myself, for who am I that I should everlastingly be consistent. But I do think it a great crime to be so inconsistent with the word of God that I should want to lop away a bough or even a twig from so much as a single tree of the forest of Scripture. God forbid that I should cut or shape, even in the least degree, any divine expression. So runs the text, and so we must read it, “God our Savior; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.””

@@PhrenicosmicOntogenyIt always comes up for me too! Haha it’s like a never ending battle in my mind trying to figure this one out…..but you’re right, we may never be 100% fully convinced, but I can at least not be divided over it. Some people really can’t let this issue be in house and it’s sad. Both sides really.

@@courtneyshannon1503 I agree. I'm perfectly willing to call people from both sides brother provided we agree on the big stuff, like the nature of God and the person and work of Jesus.

Very off with this one friend.

This is incredibly uncharitable

Since when is God arbitrary? The Scriptures state in numerous places He elects and acts according to the good purpose of His will, counsel, etc. This is a common and fallacious claim amongst semipelagian types.

God wants all men to be saved first Timothy 2:4, second peter 3:9! God, predestines groups or plurals only, never individuals. Ephesians 1 -2 points: “ us and we” are pre-destined never “you and I“! And 11 times in 11 verses from 3-14 you have to remain “in Christ“ (in him, in whom) to be predestined! Romans 9:1-3 Paul is talking about the nation of Israel, all the way to the end of chapter 11 ! So, “Jacob, I loved, Esau I hated“ is genesis 25:23 “there are two nations in your womb“! It’s talking about ‘Nations,’ not individuals in the whole context of those three chapters! Stop taking it out of context, along with Ephesians 1! Of course, we have the story of Jacob and Esau and how Esau despised his birthright ! So God truly does love all people, he truly did make hell for the devil and his angels just as Matthew 25:41 says ! Even the 42 youths, mauled by the 2 bears, was because they mocked Elijah‘s rapture, a.k.a. the resurrection , they were saying “go on up Baldy “ ; and ALL their prophets just recently Were killed by Elijah and they should’ve known to stop worshiping Baal! Bethel was the headquarters of Baal worship, where this took place! 490 priests got killed by Elijah, There was no Priests around,; should’ve been a gigantic clue. So God never arbitrarily and haphazardly deals with any human being ! His love cannot be measured says Romans 8! But if you’re a Calvinist, it’s “his love cannot be measured , (Wink, wink)“! Come out of the false belief system of Calvinism ! Now you have no excuse because you cannot out argue this, let’s hear you try! Read Matthew 25 the parable of the Calvinists, a.k.a. talents ! Where the guy buried his talent calling God,- somebody who doesn’t judge rightly & he was thrown into hell as a result! He had the wrong view of God, & So Will a Calvinist, they’ll have a callous view of God & The love of Christs sacrificial death on the cross! Jesus was crucified before the foundations of the world, but he only had to die one time Says hebrews, so don’t get it wrong like Moses; when did Jesus die ? So this trumps predestination before the foundations of the world, because God chose to to write this to disprove & trump predestination! Revelation 13:8

@@edrash1 If I were to try to interpret the original comment, he does not mean arbitrary as in random. Arbitrary can mean based solely on one's own discretion, or based solely on one's own preference. So, he is agreeing with the scripture that it is according to the good purpose of his will. However, he is saying God's will is motivated or based on something/reasons rooted in what he knows through foreknowledge.

Calvinists deny equal ultimacy God does not cause unbelief He only determines that people will have unbelief

@@jackcrow1204by determining an outcome are you not causing the outcome?

@@jackcrow1204 Respectfully, aren't 'determine' and 'cause' synonymous?

@@stephenfulford6227 yah that’s my problem. If I determine a child will not obtain an education, am I not the cause of the child’s lack of education?

There is a distinction between primary causes and secondary causes Read excusing sinners and blaming God, it will explain this in further detail

I agree with this. Calvinism destroys many Christian’s’ faiths if they believe it is true. It posits that some people only serve a purpose of pre-determined suffering. I also think the question of universalism or what really happens after death is a bit up in the air. I personally believe every one will have a chance to know God even after earthly death (Romans 14:11) and those people will have a chance to know God and honestly reject or accept Him. I suppose I take the stance of an eventual annihilationist.

Its everything but Not biblical. Punishment for eternity is biblical

Interestingly enough, if I’m to be condemned by God I would rather live on in hell than cease to exist. At least I could appreciate God for his justice and be thankful for existence. The more I think about it, the more annihilation seems so much worse.

LFW is meme outside most Christian circles tho. That seems slightly problematic

@@Maximili-jj9pt destruction is eternal.

Thus is the alleged tension of scripture concerning sovereignty

The verse in Isaiah should not say evil. Rather, more modern translations say (more correctly) calamity, referring to the plagues brought upon Israel for disciplinary purposes.

Calvinists seem to obsess (at least to my eyes) about God’s sovereignty. I can’t say I understand it. I can believe God is all powerful and yet a proponent of free will. God could step in at any time and stop the game (and eventually He will), but He doesn’t. He doesn’t have to in order to prove sovereignty. That’s what I don’t get. Unfortunately the High Calvinist view of John Piper is promoting a theology (TULIP) towards younger people (of which I am still one for now) that they don’t fully understand the implications of. Limited atonement in particular is anti Biblical and perhaps blasphemous because it denies/downplays the sacrifice Our Lord made for us (all of us). This verse along with John 3:16 makes it clear. Either God loves everyone (even the sinner) or He doesn’t: “He himself is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours, but also for those of the whole world.” ‭‭1 John‬ ‭2‬:‭2‬ ‭CSB‬‬ bible.com/bible/1713/1jn.2.2.CSB While TULIP is not all of Calvinism, I find Arminianism to be much more convincing and God’s character to be better with Arminianism. The biggest problem with Calvinism is the problem of God decreeing evil. The biggest problem with Arminianism is that we don’t know how God with foreknowledge can also make true free will. One problem I can live with, the other I cannot. I do not doubt that Calvinists are sincere Christians, but I think the theology is repackaged Gnosticism (Augustine’s Manicheanism). The new Calvinist movement will sputter and fade as more become hyper-Calvinists, which has happened historically.

@@dakotasmith1344 That seems to be a translational opinion, no?

@@thomasthellamas9886 erm, maybe? But if it is, it’s very basic. World means world. All men/women in it. To take a Calvinist interpretation you have to take a torturous reading that world doesn’t actually mean everybody. You also have to do this to multiple verses where world is used. So in my opinion, not much of a translational opinion because the reading is generally plain as it is usually narrative or prose discourse. This scripture citation is John talking about the fact that not only did Jesus die for the elect (The Church), He also died even for the people out in the world who are not part of The Church. He even died for those who would reject Him. That’s why we can proclaim the Gospel. Otherwise, it becomes “Good news, Jesus may have died for your sins and may love you” instead of the true good news: “Good news, Jesus died for your sins and He loves you”.

yeah, the historic side, or lack there of, is a pretty big problem

@@huntsman528 It really isn’t a problem. If you go to any pre-Augustinian commentary on Romans 9 you’ll see that it’s terrible. It’s not even in line with how non-Calvinists nowadays interpret Romans 9. The early church really didn’t have a clue, they just presupposed election was based upon God foreseeing faith, and put to that even upon the text of romans 9. The early church was definitely not reliable on this issue

@@huntsman528 Just like most theologians before the council of Nicaea were blatant subordinationists. All these early theologians weren’t as good and accurate as you might like to think

@@huntsman528 It really isn’t a problem. If you go to any commentary of Romans 9 before Augustine you’ll see that’s it’s terrible. The non-Calvinists of today don’t even interpret it like the early fathers. The pre-Augustinian church simply presupposed that election was based upon foreseen faith and put that even upon the text of Romans 9, even though all non-Calvinists even admit that there is some form of unconditional election in the text, but they would largely say the election is to service, not to salvation. Anyways, those pre-Augustinian theologians had no clue what they were talking about

“It isn’t a biblical stance” is not only a false statement, but the problem with ardent anti-Calvinists is that they don’t want it to be a biblical stance. Any discussion is useless if you are so appalled by the other view that you can’t imagine yourself holding it. Most people who actively engage with Calvinism are like that. Free will is not even mentioned in Scripture and is blatantly contradicted (if you mean libertarian free will) to be frank: The LORD has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble. ~ Proverbs 16:4 I know, O LORD, that the way of man is not in himself, that it is not in man who walks to direct his steps ~ Jeremiah 10:23 And many other passages. And even if Calvinism weren’t true you could still not critique it on the basis of you finding it “immoral”. Paul inclined to a general principle of “who are you to talk back to God?” You can never talk back to God, you have to shut up. For who has known the mind of the Lord?

Ok so now what?

Why?

@@TheWoodlandSeamstress It can be a lot like trying to take the full burden of proof in a conversation with a TikTok counter-apologist who says that Jesus was a mushroom and they were all trippin’ and the 12 disciples were the 12 zodiacs and the Sun on dec 25th blah blah blah, you can’t just brute force prove everything wrong just because someone brings it up. I mean, sure, it should be addressed, but it’s also fair to acknowledge that the burden of proof rests on the one making the claims, and even further that it’s fair to question the underlying questions and assumptions behind the question at hand taken at face value

I don't think that's the point of the video. A large, very large, complaint against Calvinism (or sovereignty) is they say "so God CHOOOOOSES some people to go to hell!!!! May it never be!" But if that is their complaint, they need to answer the very same issue in their own view. God knows about those who don't choose him yet he allows them to be created, thus sealing their fate on purpose. You can't fling an argument at someone else when the same thing applies to you too. That's why Gavin says you need to come up with your alternative then, cause you aren't escaping the problem by making Calvin into a boogieman and pretending it only applies to that view.

@@vigilantezack God knowing in advance that not everyone would choose Him and creating anyway is not remotely the same thing as everyone who doesn’t choose to serve God being a direct result of Him choosing to create them unable to soften their hearts to Him without Him irresistibly changing them and then not doing that for the majority of people so He can eternally torture them for not doing the impossible that only He could do for them so that He can show how powerful He is by putting people in hell for His glory.

​@littlefishbigmountain he "eternally tortures" everyone he creates who he also knows won't be saved. Sorry bub, same thing, same problem.

Not having libertarian free will negates the entire gospel and Christian theology completely. How can anyone truly be condemned for their actions if they are not actually free? This all stems from the heresy Protestantism inherited from Catholicism that we are all born guilty because of Adam’s decision to sin. However, we aren’t. We are born into a world that suffers the consequences of the fall, being the fallen world consumed by death, but not the original act of sinning against God. Thereby it makes sinning fully our choice throughout our lives and not something God forced upon us. Because of the actions of another person. Similarly, we can compare it to a baby whose mother drank during pregnancy. This baby is now much more likely to be an alcoholic, but ultimately the child possesses the ability to not drink. This doesn’t take anything away from the baby’s will, it’s just the result of another human being acting in their free will and consequences coming from another persons free will.

Because you do what you want. So you are responsible for your actions.

As a orthodox you really dont have an answer on anything about this topic. The Energy/Essence distinction ist problematic alone. But the bible tells us that Faith is a Gift. Accept it If you want

@@Tornadospeed10 The bible does say we are born guilty, because of the consequences of the fall. It further says, "The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life, through Jesus Christ, our Lord." I think it's encapsulated there.

@@saintejeannedarc9460 only it’s not. You’re reading the Bible in a hyper literal 21st century English text, which just isn’t the way it was meant to be read at all. It’s just another huge shortcoming from Protestantism. You’ve long all the lineage that held together the historicity of Christian beliefs for centuries and made up your own interpretations based on those 21st century readings.

Yeah they can't even stick to what they actually teach thus watering down to meaninglessness. After all the qualifications they make I'm often sat there thinking, "how is that different to what I believe right now?"

Interesting you see it that way. I think it’s really just you coming to understand Calvinism better. Historically Calvinists grappled with these questions and brought in these nuances from the beginning. There are some Calvinist with a simplistic view who seem to revel in God’s wrath, but that’s actually the minority and always has been.

@@noahfletcher3019 Maybe you’re not as different from Calvinists as you think? That’s what I really try to press. We have different emphasizes and some real important differences, but it’s not the wildly different critters that both sides often try to make it out to be. I think one of the issues is people find their identity in Calvinism or non-Calvinism, so it becomes a rivalry like sports teams, when in reality we’re not that different.

@@levifox2818 I haven't spent much time learning about Calvinism. It just seemed to me that the pop-Calvinism of just a few years ago is losing its distinctiveness, but if that's true then maybe, like you're saying, that is just Calvinism returning to its roots. I had a sneaking suspicion that the hardcore, pop-Calvinism that I had heard about growing up was just a reactionary movement against the liberalizing of Protestantism, but tbh I don't have enough evidence to know that that is true either....

@@notavailable4891 That’s fair. I wouldn’t consider myself an expert on historical Calvinism by any means, but there was a recent movement dubbed “the young restless and reformed” where Calvinism become “cool” so a lot of people jumped in and became caged stage Calvinists* * If you haven’t heard the term when people first become Calvinists, they often have a very aggressive approach and think they can answer all questions. We call this cage stage.

Long Live CHRIST The King

Yes 👏🏻 And a scripturally sound concept as well

Where does the Bible teach that God chooses to create people with the foreknowledge that they will free choose to reject Him?

According to one understanding of that passage is the exegesis and context is all the elect and not all persons indiscriminately.

I would be careful to use that term because if you grant even a 1 percent possibility your view is actually wrong you don't want to be the one telling God on judgment day that it is the B word.

Nor would you want to be one that is saying Calvinists are not saved (which would seem to logically extend from your use of the B word towards their view).

You have a very simplistic view of justice and love. To call Calvinists blasphemers based off of your opinion of what God's character ought to be according to you is irreverent in and of itself.

@@Adam-ue2ig it doesn't matter. If my view is wrong, I would never serve an evil God, and it's due to my "Total depravity" and God has no interest in saving me, so who cares right?

How is it easier to accept God creating people who he knows will rehect him and end up in hell? It proves that rejection and damnation is certain. Libertarian free will doesn't provide certainty for rejection and damnation. LFW assumes people can choose otherwise

So well put. Amen!

How do you know it doesnt mean that when applied to God? Honest question.

@@Tim.Foster123 Your question is a non-sequitur and makes no sense. Words have meaning--you don't get to rewrite that meaning when it suits your purposes, like a post-modernist would.

@@grit1679 Do you love your dog? Do you love your wife? Please tell me you don't love your dog the same. Note how the meaning of "love" changes depending on the class of being you're dealing with. And so it is with God. "Sovereignty" has one meaning when applied to man. But God is a different order of being. The word "sovereignty" necessarily has a different meaning, if for no other reason than He has different properties and attributes than humans (omniscience, omnipotence, Divine Asceity, omnitemporality ...just to name a few). When you fail to make these distinctions, you're treating God like a human being. And that would be an error. I would recommend a good book on Theology Proper.

@@Tim.Foster123 Yours is such a pathetic response. "Love" is a short monosyllabic general word that has been commonly understood to be context specific in the English language since it's formation. "Sovereignty" is a technical word that only those in the Calvinist cult misunderstand.

its always the first line of the video description

Trinitarianism

That’s what I believe but both sides get angry about that notion

@@Psawyer555 correct

Existence is forever and there is no way out of existence not even God can exit existence, enjoy your journey through existence

Deus Vult