You cannot take just one verse about anything. "Here a little and there a little" and then it has to fit smoothly together without twisting it out of shape. And the "Elect" were "elected and pre-known" for special missions from the Father through the Son by the Power of Holy Spirit.
Faith that leads to the salvation of the dead spirit being born again as a one off event is a gift apart from works clarified by Eph2:8-9, and Rom10:9-10.
But faithfulness through sanctification that saves the soul is not a gift clarified by Eph2:10, 1Pet1:7-9, Jam1:20-21 and Heb10:37-39.
The Greek word "believe" in Jhn3:16 has the meaning of faith that is faithful which explains why the outcome is "SHOULD not perish, but have everlasting life." The uncertainty of why it is should be saved for the complete salvation of both spirit and soul is because of the free will may or may not be faithful to God.
Romans 9 does not require calvinism. It requires the ancient Jewish understanding of hardening not a modern English interpretation. Calvinism requires a stubbornness to hold to one's modern presuppositons instead of the humility to be molded by spiritual understanding. Our faith was to the jews first. The jewish understanding tells us how to understand firstborn and it should tell us how to understand this.
One verse out of context??? Guess Christ is a liar then too, right? Proves nothing… God rejects Calvinism in OT in how He interacts with His people… But nice try. Both Calvinism and Arminianism are false
There is a logical error in this authors reflection on John 6:44.
"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him…"
It is true that the eyes of the person must be opened by the Father in order to be able to see Jesus for who He is and be able to come to Him.
But it doesn't follow from this verse that the person will actually do it. That is the free will of that person. In other words, both positions are true and not exclusive of each other, it seems to me.
Arminian views are false teaching based on pride. Arminians are at best “professing” to be Christian but are not. True believers do NOT twist Scripture to support their prideful views. Denying the total depravity of man and the absolute sovereignty of God including salvation of every man is blasphemy.
2 Tim 1:9 – God saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began.
Titus 3:5 – He saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit.
John 15:16 Rom 8:28-30 Rom 9:11 Rom 9:16 John 5:21 John 6:44-45 John 17:2 Eph 1:4-11 Eph 2:1-10 Mark 10:40 Luk 10:22 Acts 13:48 John 3
Knowing that Edwards used a KJV, wouldn't it be wise to use the same? You cannot explain these complex biblical truths about sovereignty/election in the same way with a critical text version.
Remorse and being remorseful can lead people to repentance; the change in a person’s life to follow Jesus. Repentance is being born again spiritually. ‘When you wake up each day, don’t try to figure out how to control your thoughts, emotions, and will. Rather, surrender them to Christ, and if any part is not in alignment with God’s rule in your life, let it die. As long as you try to keep your soul alive with its own will, it will continue to be distorted. The soul within you, that needs to die is your self-life, your viewpoint on a matter-your will. This needs to be replaced with God’s truth, His viewpoint, and a surrender and acceptance of His will.’ Tony Evans
Jonathan Edward’s was proficient in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew so he would not have been dependent on an English translation. Also Edward’s would not have been dependent on just Romans 9. He knew the word well and is considered the greatest American theologian and philosopher.
The funny thing about this is as a calvinist he's making statements about Armenians the exact same that Armenians would say about Calvinists both sides claim the other is not following scripture
If you said that (4:40) to me, I would still think “okay, but my effort can influence my employer’s generosity”, because I know that my generosity towards others is influenced by how they behave.
Roman 9:16 does not establish Calvin's doctrines. Yes, God shows mercy, He showed it to Israel, and then when they chose to go astray (golden calf, worshiping Baal Peor etc.) He destroyed a whole generation in the wilderness. Too often theologians read it the way they want to.
This is a very well prepared video. Be sure to check out Two-Part Romans you tube video series. Proper exegesis requires us also to recognize the ambiguous antecedent in Romans 1:13. This means that in Romans 9, Paul is explaining to the Gentile believers in Rome the fairness of God in choosing only a portion of Israel for a season. Check this out for yourself! There is a very good reason brilliant theologians like Edwards have disagreed with each other for the last 500 years.
Almost every time people choose up teams like Republican and Democrats, conservatives and liberals, blacks and whites, Reformed and Arminian satan can set back and do nothing and watch us self destruct.
Calvinism teaches that freedom is "the ability to act according to your desires." Furthermore, it teaches that the will "always chooses according to its greatest desire." For example, if I have a choice between eating a steak or eating chopped liver, I will always choose the steak because I desire it most. In fact, it could be said that I was unable to choose the liver since I did not want the liver. If you have no desire for something, you simply will not choose it.
Arminianism teaches that freedom is the ability to have chosen other than you did. For example, on the Arminian view I did not make a free choice in choosing the steak. Why? Because my choice was determined by something — my greatest desire. They say that unless I was able to choose the liver over the steak, I was not acting freely when I chose the steak.
Calvinists are not troubled by the fact that I "could not have done otherwise." They point to a distinction between natural ability to do otherwise and moral ability to do otherwise. They believe that responsibility (and thus freedom) rest upon natural ability to do otherwise, but not moral ability to do otherwise.
Natural ability to do otherwise means that there are no physical constraints forcing one to act. It means that if one wants to do otherwise, he can. If natural ability is taken away, responsibility goes as well. For example, if my teacher commands me to fly like a bird to Canada, he cannot hold me accountable for not doing it because I do not have the physical capability to do so.
Moral inability simply means that you will not choose what you do not want to choose. It does not mean that you could not chose it if you wanted it. It means that you cannot choose it because you have no desire for it. Moral inability, therefore, does not remove accountability.
For example, if my teacher commands me to do an assignment, my lack of moral ability would mean I have no desire to do the assignment. Let's say I have a greater desire to watch T.V. than do the assignment. Obviously, I could do it if I wanted to, but I simply do not want to. Clearly, my desire to watch T.V. being greater than my desire to obey my teacher would not remove my moral accountability.
In the steak example, I made a free choice on the Calvinist view because I had the natural ability to choose the liver if I had wanted to choose the liver. Nothing outside of myself was forcing me to choose the steak. I was not physically prevented from eating liver.
Since I had the physical capability to choose the liver, I made a real choice. My inability to choose the liver was a moral inability, not a natural inability. When I say I was unable to choose the liver, I mean that I could not bring myself to choose the liver because I had no desire for the liver.
Which view of freedom does the Bible teach? The Calvinist or the Arminian? A quick look at the biblical teaching of eternal security reveals that the Calvinist view is correct.
Once a person comes to Christ, they cannot loose their salvation (John 10:26-30). They are eternally saved and will go to heaven when they die. It is not possible for them to be lost. This is a big problem for the Arminian view of freedom. If it is not possible for a person to loose his salvation, then there are two options:
1. It is possible for a person to reject Christ and reject eternal life, but God will still take him to heaven when he dies even though he has rejected it. 2. It is not possible for a person to reject Christ and eternal life once he is saved.
Under option one, clearly the person's will is violated. For the person would be rejecting Christ but God would be taking them to heaven anyway. He would be saving the person against his will. This would obviously be inconsistent with both the Arminian view of freedom and the Bible.
So we must conclude that a true Christian will never utterly reject Christ and heaven. But if it is not possible for a person to reject Christ, then the person cannot do other than continue believing. This is another problem for the Arminian view — on the Arminian view, the minute that you cannot do otherwise, you are not free. Thus, eternal security is inconsistent with the Arminian view of freedom.
The Arminian may respond "the person will never reject Christ because they too reject Christ. They are freely continuing to believe because they want to continue believing. They cannot reject Christ because they do not want to." But isn't that the Calvinist view of freedom? It certainly isn't the Arminian view because the person cannot do otherwise than continue believing.
The Biblical teaching of eternal security clearly teaches the Calvinist view of freedom-the person cannot reject eternal life once they are saved because they do not want to reject eternal life. God causes us to continue wanting to believe in Him once we are saved – Jeremiah 32:40; Ezekiel 36:27.
For those who do not believe in eternal security, my argument need not change much. In heaven we will no longer sin or reject Christ. So, it is not possible for a saint in heaven to reject God. This leads to the same dilemma as eternal security, unless one accepts the Calvinist view of freedom.
What implications does this have? While there are many, a central one is that this reveals that God is able to determine who will be saved without violating our wills or forcing us to believe. If a person is elect, God does not force them to believe but neither does He leave open the possibility that they will use their will to reject Him and overthrow His plan.
For if God prepares their heart and gives them a desire for Christ that is greater than their desire to remain in sin, the person will most certainly come — and will come freely. Perhaps the implications for salvation can be summed up most clearly like this:
If God is able, after we have been saved, to keep us believing in Christ without violating our freedom, why can't He, before we are saved, cause us to believe in Christ in order to become saved — without violating our wills? In light of what we have seen, it seems clear that He can.
"For he saith to Moses…" Romans 9:15 Maybe you ought go read where "he saith to Moses". Read the entire chapter. Get the context. Quit trying to validate a man made doctrine. Read the bible and let God be true. Arminianism is heresy, but so also is Calvinism! Both are doctrines of men and violate the plain teachings of scripture! Listen to Jesus!
Paul's arguments in Roman's can only be understood in the full context of Roman's. I emphasize Roman's 11:32 here to encourage all to read and understand the entirety of the Spirits case in Romans.
Roman's 11:32 For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.
Oh boy was this concept hard to accept. I struggled with it for years. I had been so conditioned to believe in my own free will as a nonnegotiable. But the verses did not change the next time I read them. Oh sweet Jesus you conquered my unbelief and showed me the way. Thank God! Now I know of the immeasurable power and sweetness of God’s choosing.
I am so blessed to know that when I stand before God in judgment that Jesus Christ saved me and knew me before he created the universe. It is all based on his mercy and not on me and my prideful nature. All glory goes to God alone.
As Steve Brown explains we make first step to God, then God steps to us. When we ready to make next step, we see it was God who made a first step. Jesus said no one comes unless Father brings them. Jesus also said if one comes to me, I will not send them away. Maybe there is another priority for believers: to bring those born of God to maturity. Teach to obey, Mt 28:20. Equip to build, Eph 4:12
Like Calvinists don't add words? Like Calvinists don't change the meaning of words? Romans 8-9 isn't about personal salvation! This was a debate about Gentiles being accepted for salvation also. I will have mercy on Gentiles if I want to!
God choosing who he will , the Jews, practically opens the bible with this concept and doesn't budge until the last page. How can anyone say that this idea is based on a few passages taken out of context? "Jacob I loved, Esau I hated… Um, they hadn't been born yet, where was Esau's prevenient grace? The theological gymnastics required to read in free will is almost comical. It is arrogant to assume to know the nature and character of God. Either take the bible as it has been preserved for us or wander endlessly.
This isn't comfortable if you've held Arminian theology. I understand that. But intellectual honesty means following scripture where it leads, even when it contradicts what you wish were true, even when it disrupts your church's teaching. Even when it means admitting you've been reading verses through a lens rather than reading what they actually say. – Okay, one question then: how does Reformed Calvinism respond to this scripture? _ 2 Peter 3:9 “The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some men count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.”_ Peter clearly indicates that God is withholding the fulfilment of the promise of prophecy for the sake of the unsaved, God Himself willing that none should perish but all should come to repentance. That intuitively contradicts the core idea of Calvinism that predestination is specific to pre-selected individuals chosen by God for Salvation and the rest is doomed also by His Choice. Even if we reject Arminianism’s base tenant that each person is allowed the self-actuated (Libertarian) freedom of choice to willfully receive the free offer of salvation, God’s Grace, taking the scripture at face value, what it says is that God’s will is that none should perish but all come to repentance, yet we know by Christ’s own words in Matthew that “straight is the gate and narrow the way that leads to life/salvation, and broad is the way of destruction and many there be that find it”. – just these two scriptures alone dismantles the ideology of predestination and foreknowledge being applied strictly to individual persons chosen for everlasting life and the rest being discarded to everlasting punishment … Punishment for what exactly then?
This convoluted thinking prioritizes Paul over Jesus, and that is WRONG!!!. with Jesus, you have God speaking. With Paul, you have a rabbically trained, Holy Spirit inspired apostle translating God's message into Greek.
Predestination means before anyone was born God knew, predestined who he would call to follow Christ , that's all , has nothing to do with being lost or saved . Not everyone is being called in their 1st life it says many are called not all . Even if your called you can choose not to take your calling See Luke 14 : 28 [Niv] bible . Being called in your 1st life is a special calling to rule with Christ when he comes, most people will get their chance when they die and are resurrected back to life to really know God be given new heart and spirit See Eze 37 !!! The belief God only saves certain people is nonsense . Also , if really called you can neglect your calling and lose your salvation See parable of ten virgins. Calvin didn't write any books in the bible so he was fallible not inspired by God as the men who wrote the bible were .
All heresy begins with taking one or two scriptures and putting your own meanings on them. YOU MUST LET SCRIPTURE INTERPRET SCRIPTURE. Again and again, God commands people to choose. If man cannot choose, then God is just a mean bully
John 15:16 "You did not choose me but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit." Reformed Theology (Calvinist) is the only fully and adequate interpretation of God's Sovereignty! When were you chosen? Ephesians 1:4 "For He chose us in him to be holy and blameless before the foundations of the world!" There is simply no other possible explanation of; "CHOSEN BEFORE THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE WORLD 🌎🌍!
I certainly believe in Gods mercy as the only way to be saved. But saving people is way more important then endless battles about why calvinism is true. Only a true believer can understand that even faith is a wonderful merciful gift. But we begin with what has to come first (bring people to believe and repentance) and then proceed to the great Biblical truth! Understanding the deep depravity of man and the need of Gods mercy to be saved. Stay away from philosophical viewpoints about freewill, universalism and mans ability to choose! The world has no problems with such christianity and the carnal mind abides it, even in the Church!
Man does have free will ,But his will is in bondage.He can come but he wont ,Theirfore GOD ELECTS MAN FOR HIS OWN GLORY.
You cannot take just one verse about anything. "Here a little and there a little" and then it has to fit smoothly together without twisting it out of shape. And the "Elect" were "elected and pre-known" for special missions from the Father through the Son by the Power of Holy Spirit.
Faith that leads to the salvation of the dead spirit being born again as a one off event is a gift apart from works clarified by Eph2:8-9, and Rom10:9-10.
But faithfulness through sanctification that saves the soul is not a gift clarified by Eph2:10, 1Pet1:7-9, Jam1:20-21 and Heb10:37-39.
The Greek word "believe" in Jhn3:16 has the meaning of faith that is faithful which explains why the outcome is "SHOULD not perish, but have everlasting life." The uncertainty of why it is should be saved for the complete salvation of both spirit and soul is because of the free will may or may not be faithful to God.
Romans 9 does not require calvinism. It requires the ancient Jewish understanding of hardening not a modern English interpretation. Calvinism requires a stubbornness to hold to one's modern presuppositons instead of the humility to be molded by spiritual understanding. Our faith was to the jews first. The jewish understanding tells us how to understand firstborn and it should tell us how to understand this.
One verse out of context??? Guess Christ is a liar then too, right? Proves nothing… God rejects Calvinism in OT in how He interacts with His people… But nice try. Both Calvinism and Arminianism are false
The one who puts Leighton Flowers voice on this is evil 😂😂😂
There is a logical error in this authors reflection on John 6:44.
"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him…"
It is true that the eyes of the person must be opened by the Father in order to be able to see Jesus for who He is and be able to come to Him.
But it doesn't follow from this verse that the person will actually do it. That is the free will of that person. In other words, both positions are true and not exclusive of each other, it seems to me.
I was called. I am trying to follow.
Arminianism wins on Biblicity.
Both sides quote the same Bible. Both sound right. That's not a you problem — that's a method problem.
The Calvinism vs. Arminianism Decision Matrix gives you a structured framework to evaluate both systems and reach a verdict that's actually yours.
🔗 Get The Calvinism vs. Arminianism Decision Matrix → https://edwards1.bibletruthacademy.com/
Arminian views are false teaching based on pride. Arminians are at best “professing” to be Christian but are not. True believers do NOT twist Scripture to support their prideful views. Denying the total depravity of man and the absolute sovereignty of God including salvation of every man is blasphemy.
One verse?
2 Tim 1:9 – God saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began.
Titus 3:5 – He saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit.
John 15:16
Rom 8:28-30
Rom 9:11
Rom 9:16
John 5:21
John 6:44-45
John 17:2
Eph 1:4-11
Eph 2:1-10
Mark 10:40
Luk 10:22
Acts 13:48
John 3
Didn’t Jesus select and call and choose Judas?
Assurance hits different when it rests on God’s mercy, not my decision
It is great wisdom to "make your calling and election sure". God says to do it, so do it.
Romans 9 is not the defining passage. Read Romans 1 first. This is not a hermanutic problem.
Glory to Jesus
If Adam was our representative head in the Garden, why can't it be said that Adam used up our freedom to choose regarding salvation at that time?
Knowing that Edwards used a KJV, wouldn't it be wise to use the same? You cannot explain these complex biblical truths about sovereignty/election in the same way with a critical text version.
Remorse and being remorseful can lead people to repentance; the change in a person’s life to follow Jesus. Repentance is being born again spiritually. ‘When you wake up each day, don’t try to figure out how to control your thoughts, emotions, and will. Rather, surrender them to Christ, and if any part is not in alignment with God’s rule in your life, let it die. As long as you try to keep your soul alive with its own will, it will continue to be distorted. The soul within you, that needs to die is your self-life, your viewpoint on a matter-your will. This needs to be replaced with God’s truth, His viewpoint, and a surrender and acceptance of His will.’ Tony Evans
Edwards was an evil false teaching calvinist. Reject this heretic.
God chooses to have mercy on the repentant. Christ's death on the cross can save everyone who is repentant.
Jonathan Edward’s was proficient in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew so he would not have been dependent on an English translation. Also Edward’s would not have been dependent on just Romans 9. He knew the word well and is considered the greatest American theologian and philosopher.
The funny thing about this is as a calvinist he's making statements about Armenians the exact same that Armenians would say about Calvinists both sides claim the other is not following scripture
2:10. Classic Eisegesis. Assuming the “It” in Rom9:16 refers to salvation… try again.
AI or a scam?
Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean no on your own understanding
If you said that (4:40) to me, I would still think “okay, but my effort can influence my employer’s generosity”, because I know that my generosity towards others is influenced by how they behave.
Calvinism is so hated because it it the clearest explanation of the totality of God’s sovereignty in salvation.
It lets the scripture speak clearly.
Roman 9:16 does not establish Calvin's doctrines. Yes, God shows mercy, He showed it to Israel, and then when they chose to go astray (golden calf, worshiping Baal Peor etc.) He destroyed a whole generation in the wilderness. Too often theologians read it the way they want to.
This is a very well prepared video. Be sure to check out Two-Part Romans you tube video series. Proper exegesis requires us also to recognize the ambiguous antecedent in Romans 1:13. This means that in Romans 9, Paul is explaining to the Gentile believers in Rome the fairness of God in choosing only a portion of Israel for a season. Check this out for yourself! There is a very good reason brilliant theologians like Edwards have disagreed with each other for the last 500 years.
Almost every time people choose up teams like Republican and Democrats, conservatives and liberals, blacks and whites, Reformed and Arminian satan can set back and do nothing and watch us self destruct.
But, “I believed in Jesus, they did not”. Let me pat myself on the back! 🥴🥴
Calvinism teaches that freedom is "the ability to act according to your desires." Furthermore, it teaches that the will "always chooses according to its greatest desire." For example, if I have a choice between eating a steak or eating chopped liver, I will always choose the steak because I desire it most. In fact, it could be said that I was unable to choose the liver since I did not want the liver. If you have no desire for something, you simply will not choose it.
Arminianism teaches that freedom is the ability to have chosen other than you did. For example, on the Arminian view I did not make a free choice in choosing the steak. Why? Because my choice was determined by something — my greatest desire. They say that unless I was able to choose the liver over the steak, I was not acting freely when I chose the steak.
Calvinists are not troubled by the fact that I "could not have done otherwise." They point to a distinction between natural ability to do otherwise and moral ability to do otherwise. They believe that responsibility (and thus freedom) rest upon natural ability to do otherwise, but not moral ability to do otherwise.
Natural ability to do otherwise means that there are no physical constraints forcing one to act. It means that if one wants to do otherwise, he can. If natural ability is taken away, responsibility goes as well. For example, if my teacher commands me to fly like a bird to Canada, he cannot hold me accountable for not doing it because I do not have the physical capability to do so.
Moral inability simply means that you will not choose what you do not want to choose. It does not mean that you could not chose it if you wanted it. It means that you cannot choose it because you have no desire for it. Moral inability, therefore, does not remove accountability.
For example, if my teacher commands me to do an assignment, my lack of moral ability would mean I have no desire to do the assignment. Let's say I have a greater desire to watch T.V. than do the assignment. Obviously, I could do it if I wanted to, but I simply do not want to. Clearly, my desire to watch T.V. being greater than my desire to obey my teacher would not remove my moral accountability.
In the steak example, I made a free choice on the Calvinist view because I had the natural ability to choose the liver if I had wanted to choose the liver. Nothing outside of myself was forcing me to choose the steak. I was not physically prevented from eating liver.
Since I had the physical capability to choose the liver, I made a real choice. My inability to choose the liver was a moral inability, not a natural inability. When I say I was unable to choose the liver, I mean that I could not bring myself to choose the liver because I had no desire for the liver.
Which view of freedom does the Bible teach? The Calvinist or the Arminian? A quick look at the biblical teaching of eternal security reveals that the Calvinist view is correct.
Once a person comes to Christ, they cannot loose their salvation (John 10:26-30). They are eternally saved and will go to heaven when they die. It is not possible for them to be lost. This is a big problem for the Arminian view of freedom. If it is not possible for a person to loose his salvation, then there are two options:
1. It is possible for a person to reject Christ and reject eternal life, but God will still take him to heaven when he dies even though he has rejected it.
2. It is not possible for a person to reject Christ and eternal life once he is saved.
Under option one, clearly the person's will is violated. For the person would be rejecting Christ but God would be taking them to heaven anyway. He would be saving the person against his will. This would obviously be inconsistent with both the Arminian view of freedom and the Bible.
So we must conclude that a true Christian will never utterly reject Christ and heaven. But if it is not possible for a person to reject Christ, then the person cannot do other than continue believing. This is another problem for the Arminian view — on the Arminian view, the minute that you cannot do otherwise, you are not free. Thus, eternal security is inconsistent with the Arminian view of freedom.
The Arminian may respond "the person will never reject Christ because they too reject Christ. They are freely continuing to believe because they want to continue believing. They cannot reject Christ because they do not want to." But isn't that the Calvinist view of freedom? It certainly isn't the Arminian view because the person cannot do otherwise than continue believing.
The Biblical teaching of eternal security clearly teaches the Calvinist view of freedom-
the person cannot reject eternal life once they are saved because they do not want to reject eternal life. God causes us to continue wanting to believe in Him once we are saved –Jeremiah 32:40; Ezekiel 36:27.For those who do not believe in eternal security, my argument need not change much. In heaven we will no longer sin or reject Christ. So, it is not possible for a saint in heaven to reject God. This leads to the same dilemma as eternal security, unless one accepts the Calvinist view of freedom.
What implications does this have? While there are many, a central one is that this reveals that God is able to determine who will be saved without violating our wills or forcing us to believe. If a person is elect, God does not force them to believe but neither does He leave open the possibility that they will use their will to reject Him and overthrow His plan.
For if God prepares their heart and gives them a desire for Christ that is greater than their desire to remain in sin, the person will most certainly come — and will come freely. Perhaps the implications for salvation can be summed up most clearly like this:
If God is able, after we have been saved, to keep us believing in Christ without violating our freedom, why can't He, before we are saved, cause us to believe in Christ in order to become saved — without violating our wills? In light of what we have seen, it seems clear that He can.
"For he saith to Moses…"
Romans 9:15
Maybe you ought go read where "he saith to Moses".
Read the entire chapter. Get the context. Quit trying to validate a man made doctrine. Read the bible and let God be true.
Arminianism is heresy, but so also is Calvinism!
Both are doctrines of men and violate the plain teachings of scripture!
Listen to Jesus!
In Christ Jesus my Lord and my God,
Shane Shaddix
Paul's arguments in Roman's can only be understood in the full context of Roman's. I emphasize Roman's 11:32 here to encourage all to read and understand the entirety of the Spirits case in Romans.
Roman's 11:32 For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.
Oh boy was this concept hard to accept. I struggled with it for years. I had been so conditioned to believe in my own free will as a nonnegotiable. But the verses did not change the next time I read them. Oh sweet Jesus you conquered my unbelief and showed me the way. Thank God! Now I know of the immeasurable power and sweetness of God’s choosing.
I am so blessed to know that when I stand before God in judgment that Jesus Christ saved me and knew me before he created the universe. It is all based on his mercy and not on me and my prideful nature. All glory goes to God alone.
As Steve Brown explains we make first step to God, then God steps to us. When we ready to make next step, we see it was God who made a first step. Jesus said no one comes unless Father brings them. Jesus also said if one comes to me, I will not send them away. Maybe there is another priority for believers: to bring those born of God to maturity. Teach to obey, Mt 28:20. Equip to build, Eph 4:12
Like Calvinists don't add words? Like Calvinists don't change the meaning of words?
Romans 8-9 isn't about personal salvation!
This was a debate about Gentiles being accepted for salvation also.
I will have mercy on Gentiles if I want to!
God choosing who he will , the Jews, practically opens the bible with this concept and doesn't budge until the last page. How can anyone say that this idea is based on a few passages taken out of context? "Jacob I loved, Esau I hated… Um, they hadn't been born yet, where was Esau's prevenient grace? The theological gymnastics required to read in free will is almost comical. It is arrogant to assume to know the nature and character of God. Either take the bible as it has been preserved for us or wander endlessly.
This isn't comfortable if you've held Arminian theology. I understand that. But intellectual honesty means following scripture where it leads, even when it contradicts what you wish were true, even when it disrupts your church's teaching. Even when it means admitting you've been reading verses through a lens rather than reading what they actually say. – Okay, one question then: how does Reformed Calvinism respond to this scripture? _ 2 Peter 3:9 “The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some men count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.”_ Peter clearly indicates that God is withholding the fulfilment of the promise of prophecy for the sake of the unsaved, God Himself willing that none should perish but all should come to repentance. That intuitively contradicts the core idea of Calvinism that predestination is specific to pre-selected individuals chosen by God for Salvation and the rest is doomed also by His Choice. Even if we reject Arminianism’s base tenant that each person is allowed the self-actuated (Libertarian) freedom of choice to willfully receive the free offer of salvation, God’s Grace, taking the scripture at face value, what it says is that God’s will is that none should perish but all come to repentance, yet we know by Christ’s own words in Matthew that “straight is the gate and narrow the way that leads to life/salvation, and broad is the way of destruction and many there be that find it”. – just these two scriptures alone dismantles the ideology of predestination and foreknowledge being applied strictly to individual persons chosen for everlasting life and the rest being discarded to everlasting punishment … Punishment for what exactly then?
This convoluted thinking prioritizes Paul over Jesus, and that is WRONG!!!.
with Jesus, you have God speaking. With Paul, you have a rabbically trained, Holy Spirit inspired apostle translating God's message into Greek.
Predestination means before anyone was born God knew, predestined who he would call to follow Christ , that's all , has nothing to do with being lost or saved . Not everyone is being called in their 1st life it says many are called not all . Even if your called you can choose not to take your calling See Luke 14 : 28 [Niv] bible . Being called in your 1st life is a special calling to rule with Christ when he comes, most people will get their chance when they die and are resurrected back to life to really know God be given new heart and spirit See Eze 37 !!! The belief God only saves certain people is nonsense . Also , if really called you can neglect your calling and lose your salvation See parable of ten virgins. Calvin didn't write any books in the bible so he was fallible not inspired by God as the men who wrote the bible were .
All heresy begins with taking one or two scriptures and putting your own meanings on them. YOU MUST LET SCRIPTURE INTERPRET SCRIPTURE. Again and again, God commands people to choose. If man cannot choose, then God is just a mean bully
Now do it again, but without the AI slop, no one should watch this.
John 15:16 "You did not choose me but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit." Reformed Theology (Calvinist) is the only fully and adequate interpretation of God's Sovereignty! When were you chosen? Ephesians 1:4 "For He chose us in him to be holy and blameless before the foundations of the world!" There is simply no other possible explanation of; "CHOSEN BEFORE THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE WORLD 🌎🌍!
I certainly believe in Gods mercy as the only way to be saved. But saving people is way more important then endless battles about why calvinism is true. Only a true believer can understand that even faith is a wonderful merciful gift. But we begin with what has to come first (bring people to believe and repentance) and then proceed to the great Biblical truth! Understanding the deep depravity of man and the need of Gods mercy to be saved. Stay away from philosophical viewpoints about freewill, universalism and mans ability to choose! The world has no problems with such christianity and the carnal mind abides it, even in the Church!