Jerry Walls: What's Wrong With Calvinism, Part 2

In this edition of the Evangel University Guest Lecture Series, Dr. Jerry Walls of Houston Baptist University addresses the topic, "Calvinism & The God of Love."

Funding for this event was provided by the John Templeton foundation through a grant from the Institute for Humane Studies.

© 2016 Jerry Walls. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

[apistanian]

The audio quality on this segment is atrocious. I really hope Mr. Walls takes it upon himself to redo this segment so that the lesson is more effective. It is hard to follow because of the audio quality.

[davidoltmans]

I’ve been pondering this reformed theology that is creeping into Baptist pulpits. Having been deceived in the past by a denomination that claims a special revelation, I have sharpened my biblical senses to perceive error when it rears its ugly head. Such is my opinion of Calvinism. I have found most Calvinist to be cock sure of their predestined election but fail to understanding of our Father’s loving character. I fail to understand how they can cling to this error when Jesus clearly stated that to see Him its to see the Father.

[REDRAGON]

I thank God for men like Jerry Walls! And I thank God that Calvinism is false and that the God of love (1 John 4:8) truly loves all men (John 3:16), died for all men (1 John 2:2), draws all men to Himself (John 12:32), offers mercy and salvation to all men (Romans 11:32, Titus 2:11), wants all men to be saved (1 Tim 2:4), and for none to perish (2 Peter 3:9). This is the true and living God of the Bible.

[laurentbillaud]

Great exposition. God is love. Thank you from France

[jayahladas]

If "No free will to choose" were true then the Judgment Seat of Christ and the Great White Throne Judgment would be a joke. Think on these things:. how could souls be judged and held responsible if their actions had been predestined without free will? Is that just

[kimsteel]

When Dr. Walls, a philosophy professor, makes it clear that his approach against Calvinism is from a philosophical perspective, yet people complain that he isn't using scripture... 😳😳😬😬

[PotterSpurn]

For those doubtful of the Calvinist theology as representing the true character and purpose of God's glorification through the TULIP acronym, may I suggest consulting Mike Winger's YT videos on Romans Chapter 9, which is one of the main two proof texts Calvinists use to present their arguments (along with Ephesians 1). These two videos explains in detail, with compelling exegisis what on what these chapters actually represents - how Paul referred back to the Old Testament to explain the new convenant under Jesus, and his second video that explains in more detail what and why God 'hardens hearts' and what that means for understanding salvation.

After hearing these videos, along with Jerry Walls excellent presentations opposing the Calvinist position, I am convinced as much as I can be that their position is the most likely accurate one and not those presented by the Reformed Calvinists who present God as a determinist - one who must creates all evil acts along with actions we would consider to be morally acceptable. One of the most compelling arguments Mike Winger states in regards to Total Depravity (the T in TULIP) : the idea that man is so fallen in sin that he is incapable of doing or choosing any action by himself other than to rebel against God and that even the act of coming to the faith is only by the divine intervention of God.

That argument is this one: if man is so depraved and so incapable of a simple act of responding to Gods calling without invitation by the living God first to 'inject' that response capability into him first of all, why was it ever necessary for God to harden the hearts of some figures represented in the Bible to stop them from coming to faith in the first place? It would be totally unnecessary. Plus there are numerous examples of God grieving for those who are lost, turn away from discipleship. Plus there are examples of why Jesus spoke in parables to stop those he was rejecting - at a particular time - from understanding what was written. They wouldn't understand anyway even if spoke clearly, wouldn't they? Why would God do this, if man had no free will to accept or reject his call? It makes no sense at all.

I am still open minded and, obviously, as my knowledge grows and my understanding, which must surely only come from reading scripture for myself and understanding it by myself (as God chooses to reveal himself to me, in scripture) rather than relying upon presentations offered by others who may well misrepresent those position that they oppose, leading me to draw erroneous conclusions, I can only say as much that Calvinism seems wrong to me, and offends my superficial understanding of God's nature. It does not represent a rejection of God as I truly know he is. For whatever God is like, whatever he decreed - whether the Calvinist theologian correctly presents, or the non-Calvinist one - God is righteous and just in what he decrees and whatever I or anyone else thinks is of no consequence at all because God judges us not we him.

[brbas]

great video, the teaching was very powerful the audio was a minor detail. tks for uploading this video

[willieboogie]

truly..if you think God does not love all his creation..and desires to save them through his son...then you don't know that God is love 1 John 4:7&8

[kevinbarton]

Beware
of “gnat strainers & camel swallowers.!”

Tell truth - get love - get mercy . Rejoice !

[Xenosaurian]

I just want to note, there's a problem with the sound in the video, there's a lot of mumbling and you can hardly hear what is being said.

[jnau]

I love the teaching of Jerry walls and I love God for allowing him to so clearly advocate for the traditionalist perspective but leave recording on this video is horrific

[TheJCFan]

I like to ask Calvinists "If God is sovereign in all his decisions and he decides to let man choose his eternal destiny, who are you to argue with God?"

[clintrothell]

Has anyone figured out what his shirt says? I can only make out “Calvinism: minds…”

[Zomfoo]

It’s such a shame the sound and editing of this video are both poor.

[adventures]

Thanks for uploading this video. I wish the audio was clearer. Just when I thought Calvinism could not get wackier 34:10 offers the MOST ridiculous argument from the Calvinist camp that I have ever heard. Everyone is well aware that the devil and his angels are condemned to hell so why do people need to go there for God to be glorified?

[thirdmaskstudio]

The awful sound quality to this video makes me wonder if Satan is attempting to distract from the truth by entering into the editing room.

[kevinbarton]

If salvation is only for a few
Then
John 3:16&17 is not true. The whole gospel of god is questionable.

Gospel turns into vain babbling . Not a spiritual exercise.

Calvinist demonstrate no zealous desire to serve as Jesus serves us .

[andrewmichaelsevilla]

The audio is very ""echoey" hard to understand

[soteriology]

@51:19 If this is the sort of thinking that turns Calvinists on. then why do most whom call themselves Calvinists adhere to a limited personal atonement rather than an unlimited impersonal one? If God constantly offered the damned a LEGITIMATE offer of salvation which they themselves REJECTED would that not give the elect more cause to rejoice, seeing that the rebrobes screwed the deal up by failing to believe thereby meriting a more complete damnation? if the grace for them to be like you was there & they rejected it due to hardness & the same grace was there and you received it due to the grace working in you being effective then would that not glorify God all the more in His legitimate refused offer of generosity? A secondary problem for this damnation gratefulness problem is WHAT DOES THE CALVINIST DO with the plain statement by Paul that many if not most of the ELECT suffer LOSS? 1 Corinthians 3:15 Suffering loss does not make the chosen any more happy does it? Or perhaps maybe suffering loss makes the ones that got a full reward more happy to God that they were not the ones chosen to suffer loss? @105:40 Yes popular Calvinism is plainly TWO FACED in all but a few cases. The Calvinists I once rubbed shoulders with were generally up front with their beliefs. The ones with big popular ministries however, generally do not present their "gospel" if you can call it that, right up front in their evangelistic campaigns. There is a gospel they present to the public that looks quite arminian or libratarian yet behind the scenes there is an esoteric form of thinking that generally is not presented to call the general public to believe it. The clique of Calvinists I once rubbed shoulders with after Creation Science Fellowship meetings did actually present their esoteric ism up front & were proud of it. @56:17 You see what Matthew J Hart left out? "..others.. same nature... same circumstances.." what about same opportunities? Because Calvinism generally does not see God giving the lost a legitimate offer .... because unlike in Jeopardy there really is nothing behind door number 2 which God legitimately called them to OPEN.. God does not call people then to TAKE A CHANCE like in Pascal's wager? When He calls the unelect to open the gospel door which they redfuse He has nothing behind it to win? God then is just bluffing as the general call goes out. That is the folly of personal limited atonement. Also even with personal unlimited atonement Arthur Pink sort of does not get it when he claims that Jesus Christ died for the sin of unbelief in his 3 choice argument 1) All of the sins of all men, 2) some of the sins of all men, 3) all of the sins of some men. is unbelief a sin? Of course it is. Yet in a personal atonement scenerio if Jesus died for a sin on your behalf that means YOU are destined to COMMIT IT. If Jesus did not die for a sin in your lifetime then you are destined to AVOID IT. Pink failed to understand that If Jesus Christ continuously died for every sin of unbelief you would commit from birth till death when faced with the gospel THEN YOU ARE DAMNED because you never believed. If Jesus Christ stopped paying for your unbelief at some point in your lifetime YOU BELIEVED ie you repented of your unbelief and therefore are saved. When Paul tells us that we should not sin in order that grace might abound then what if Jesus died for your abounding sin? If Jesus paid super abounding grace then does that mean my sins must abound? Can I then not avoid them? If I cannot avoid them then why does Paul tell me to avoid them?