Answering Objections to Calvinism with (Chris Date)

In this video, Eli Ayala and Chris Date discuss popular objections to Calvinism.

[jeffreywp]

I appreciated Chris’ philosophical approach in arguing for Calvinism. I wish he would have included the many scriptural evidences of its validity and even discussed some counter arguments to those scriptures.

[Charlie]

I also am reformed and hold to conditional immortality.

[Gisbertus_Voetius]

The main problem with libertariansim is that it put mens will on par with Gods. But actually these two wills operate on qualitatively different levels. It is not true the that Gods will somehow 'destroys' mens will or vice versa. They are both active and free in their sphere.

God is omnipresent. My book stands on the shelf. Does that mean that the space my book is taking somehow takes away from Gods omnipresence? Of course not! God is there, my book is there, and they 'are' both there, but on wholly different levels.

[ambassador_in_training]

Thank you for the video Eli. I love and respect Chris for going deeply into Scripture when he discusses Conditional Immortality vs Traditional Hell position. It's really helpful to follow the verses and see how the Bible itself describes the view on hell.
Eli, it'd be great to present chapter and verse as well as the immediate context of the verse when discussing Compatibilistic vs Libertarian free will.
Let the audience be convinced by Scripture that one view seems more aligned with Scripture.
Chris isn't answering every objection by going deeply into the text of Scripture. Chris uses verse in only some of the objections.

This gives the impression that he's only giving his opinion as opposed to an exegetical interpretation of the specific passages that argue for his position.

Thank you for considering answering objections to Calvinism using this method.
God bless you richly!

[Gisbertus_Voetius]

44:41 The Reformed Scholstics used the difference between the "necessity of the consequence" and the "necessity of the consequent".
N(p->q) is not the same as p->Nq. With this we can show that only the relation of implication itself is necessary, but neither p nor q have to be necessary, they can be perfectly contingent.

Eg: If I marry Sophie, Sophie is my wife. It is contingent that I marry Sophie and that she is now my wife, but the implication between both is necessary. It cannot be that I marry Sophie but she is not my wife. With that, it is proofen that compatibilism is not the same as hard determinism, because there are contingent states of affaires that could be different than they are now.
See: vanAsselt/Bac/te Velde, Reformed Thought on Freedom, Baker Academic 2010, pp. 35-38

[Gisbertus_Voetius]

Genesis 3:12: It is very interessting that Adam sought two scapegoats in his excuse. He literally said "The women YOU put in here", blaming first Eve and then God for his action, implicitly stating that God is responsible for the mess.

[irenicpelagian]

I guess I fail to see how something like the author analogy makes life any more meaningful for the characters written into the story. Criticize certain methods as flattening things out all you'd like but the fact remains that exhaustive determinism of all things cannot escape this "rub" against it ~ the idea that we're no more than robots. Maybe there is an audience after all that doesn't include us ~ were that the case, we would be as meaningful to them as Rumplestiltskin is to us. No worries...I'm glad I was able to play a part in the story...haha. While I'm at it, thanks Rumple...for what it's worth

At least on the alternative view when temptation presents itself you actually have a chance to resist it. Not so when God has decided/determined that your desires will be what they are precisely at the time he has caused the necessary events to collide to get you to commit whatever good or evil he has determined you to do. Anyways, good luck with that...or maybe that would be arbitrary? Never mind.

[danielcartwright]

Do you know why we don't blame authors for writing bad characters into their stories? Because the characters are NOT REAL! If the characters were real, authors would be morally accountable for how they treated them.

[gingrai]

The doctrines of Calvinism seem more plausible when considered in the light of Conditional Immortality.

[arthur]

Re: "occasionalism" and coin-tosses: "You shall not put the Lord your God to the foolish test."

[arthur]

Re. the apostles casting lots to choose Judas' replacement: 1) This occurred PRIOR to the empowering and indwelling of the Church by the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. The apostles performed no miracles between Christ's resurrection (on the Feast of Firstfruits) and (the Feast of) Pentecost. 2) Paul was CHRIST'S replacement for Judas, Not Matthias. Scripture merely records the presumption of the pre-Pentecost apostles inerrantly. Paul begins where Judas left off, as an enemy of Christ - just as Peter did after the resurrection (think of Christ's threefold restoration of Peter at the end of John, matching his three-fold denial of Christ at his trial). Both men are restored by Christ. Peter in actuality, and Judas metaphorically, in Paul, in actuality. The Holy Spirit did it this way SO THAT we could tell whom Christ actually chose to replace Judas. Matthias was chosen by the apostles and is never heard from again in scripture. Christ chose Paul who went on to become the Apostle to the Gentiles (alongside Peter, the Apostle to the Circumcision), and to write half of the scripture of the New Testament.

[arthur]

We, being evil, do not know how to give our child good gifts WHILE AT THE SAME TIME loving the LORD our God with ALL of our heart and ALL of our mind, and ALL of our soul, and ALL of our strength - which makes us giving our child a good gift a sin. Note: if we were to fail to give our children the good gift of food, for instance, that would be a worse sin than giving them the good gift of food from an impure motive. Just as adding a grain of potassium cyanide to an otherwise wholesome glass of milk makes that glass of milk entirely a glass of deadly poison, so adding a sinful motive to an otherwise good work, even after the fact, makes that entire work sinful. BTW, because all of our sins, including sinful motives, have already been forgiven in Christ, a Christian's otherwise good works which he pollutes with forgiven sin are considered pure good works before our Judge. Having been forgiven of all of our sins, it is impossible for us to do any work which isn't good from the POV of God our Judge in the heavenly courtroom (but not from the POV of God our Father). There remain no unforgiven sins with which we could pollute our good works.

[arthur]

Re. Romans 8:28-30 being about people in the past: Is "... and whom he justified, these he also GLORIFIED" also about people in the past? So no one who hasn't yet been glorified has been justified, called, and predestined? "Ruh-roh!" Or else, if you assert that they have been glorified already, beware lest you end up inadvertently "teaching that the (general) resurrection is past and overthrowing the faith of some". Paul is emphasizing the certainty of the Golden Chain of Redemption. It is about God's decree - all of which was in eternity past. When did God predestine people for salvation? In time? No. In eternity past in his decree. Therefore his calling, justifying, and glorifying, spoken of here, are also part of his eternal decree. That's why the entire chain is past tense even though at least one link must be future.

[arthur]

Is the author of a novel in which one of his characters commits mass murder morally responsible for the mass murder which he has "foreordained" that his character commits in the story? Or is that character alone morally blameworthy? I think we all know the answer to that question. It depends on the purpose of the author. If the author is writing "snuff" porn for the sake of gratifying the prurient desire of his readers and thereby making a bundle of money or becoming famous - yes, he is morally blameworthy. But is that what God in foreordaining all events, including events of mass murder, is doing? No, IDTS.

Who is the audience for God's novel made into a play made into a movie? I think a play with a written [fixed] script, made into a play captured on film as a screenplay, is the better analogy. God's decree is the script of the screenplay and history is the play being performed live and filmed for posterity. There is only one live performance of this play. The characters themselves, after the curtain has come down on the final act of the play, are his audience. They will watch the re-play (pun not intended), now screenplay captured on film and preserved for eternity.

Does God intend that his novel/play/screenplay ennoble or debase and debauch his intended audience? Neither those who are justly suffering in Hell for their own evil nor those rejoicing in God's righteousness in Heaven will gain any pleasure from the replay of their own sins or the sins of others. Those in Hell will repent of their sins in a Judas-like manner (pseudo-repentance) after viewing God's production, while those in Heaven will be humbled in a Peter-like fashion, giving thanks and glory to God in Christ for granting him true repentance and faith in his overflowing grace.

[thebestdothereis]

robot[ roh-buh t, -bot ] noun
1. a machine that resembles a human and does mechanical, routine tasks on command.
2. a person who acts and responds in a mechanical, routine manner, usually subject to another's will; automaton.
3. any machine or mechanical device that operates automatically with humanlik

ORIGIN OF ROBOT
< Czech, coined by Karel Čapek in the play R.U.R. (1920) from the base robot-, as in robota compulsory labor, robotník peasant owing such labor

The concept of artificial humans predates recorded history (see automaton), but the modern term robot derives from the Czech word robota (“forced labour” or “serf”), used in Karel Čapek’s play R.U.R. (1920). The play’s robots were manufactured humans, heartlessly exploited by factory owners until they revolted and ultimately destroyed humanity. Whether they were biological, like the monster in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1818), or mechanical was not specified, but the mechanical alternative inspired generations of inventors to build electrical humanoids.

Alternative Title: “R.U.R.: Rossum’s Universal Robots”
R.U.R., in full R.U.R.: Rossum’s Universal Robots, drama in three acts by Karel Čapek, published in 1920 and performed in 1921. This cautionary play, for which Čapek invented the word robot (derived from the Czech word for forced labour), involves a scientist named Rossum who discovers the secret of creating humanlike machines. He establishes a factory to produce and distribute these mechanisms worldwide. Another scientist decides to make the robots more human, which he does by gradually adding such traits as the capacity to feel pain. Years later, the robots, who were created to serve humans, have come to dominate them completely.

[gingrai]

Good to see Chris! His study on the nature of hell and the end of the wicked is outstanding. I think more Calvinists should think of his view as it is utterly founded on scripture.

[arthur]

I DO expect to see my perhaps hundreds of miscarried children in Heaven, Chris, and so can you and your wife, by virtue of Christ's fulfillment of the Day of Atonement sacrifice for "the sins of the people committed in ignorance" FOR THEM, original sin being a "sin of ignorance" in Adam's posterity. In the DoA sacrifice, the people atoned for by the High Priest are passive and therefore NOT WORKING and therefore NOT EVIDENCING FAITH. It is the High Priest who WORKS (evidencing faith) for their atonement. However, in Christ's fulfillment of the Passover sacrifice FOR WILLFUL or HIGH-HANDED sin with KNOWLEDGE and UNDERSTANDING (i.e., eating from the Tree of the KNOWLEDGE of Good and Evil), the one atoned for (the male head of household and/or his "one-flesh" wife) IS WORKING in performing the Passover sacrifice, and as James explains for us, that means he is EVIDENCING FAITH. The members of his household, to a lesser or greater degree depending on their own understanding, are covered temporarily by his faith to a lesser or greater degree.

Now, because miscarried children (and I would say, all children who have not YET personally eaten from the Tree of the KNOWLEDGE of Good and EVIL - FOR THEMSELVES, but are covenantally covered by their fathers extending back to Adam eating FOR THEM) are guilty only of the imputed sin of Adam, original sin, and do not even have OTHER varieties of sins of ignorance beyond original sin to be atoned for, let alone willful sin with knowledge, Christ's fulfillment of the DoA can save them apart from their own faith. Older born children may have their own sins of ignorance as well as imputed OS, which sins of ignorance are also atoned for by Christ in the DoA. Their sin, which was imputed to them from another without their own disobedient "anti-works" (sin) evidencing their own "anti-faith" (unbelief), can be forgiven by Christ's fulfillment of the DOA sacrifice for them alone, without positive faith evidenced by positive works on their part. If they were made guilty by the anti-faith evidenced by the anti-work of Adam ALONE, then they can be made innocent and righteous by positive faith evidenced by the positive works of Jesus Christ ALONE - without THEIR OWN positive faith evidenced by their OWN positive works.

For those people who have reached the age where they have eaten from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil for themselves, having willfully committed THEIR OWN transgressions of God's commands with knowledge and understanding of the gravity of what they are doing, Christ must fulfill both the DOA sacrifice for original sin and other sins of ignorance, and the Passover sacrifice, which later sacrifice requires their personal faith in Christ to unite them to Christ in the Passover sacrifice. The people are passive (no faith required) in the DOA sacrifice (which is what breaks their covenant connection to their federal head, Adam, paying his debt which they owe, and clearing the way for the Holy Spirit to regenerate them, causing them to be born Spiritually "IN" Christ, their new Covenant Head), and active (positive faith required) in the Passover sacrifice. But no one can get to the Passover sacrifice except through the Day of Atonement sacrifice. IOW, Christ's fulfillment of the DoA sacrifice is logically prior to his fulfillment of the Passover sacrifice in the order of salvation.

Note: Christ fulfilled the DOA sacrifice in two locations. On earth, where there are priests after the order of Aaron (Heb.), he is not a priest but is the DOA victim, and is and is not the DOA scapegoat in different senses (much more to explain here). In Heaven, he is the High Priest after the order of Melchizedek who applies his own blood to the heavenly "Throne of Mercy".

It is literally possible (I am not asserting this is so because I cannot prove it is so from scripture), that ALL children, baptized or unbaptized, of all couples, be they married or unmarried, baptized or unbaptized, circumcised or uncircumcised, Jew or Gentile or Christian, believing or unbelieving, which children die before they eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil for themselves - are saved by Christ's fulfillment of the DoA sacrifice for them. All that is necessary for their salvation is that they are elect. And God can elect all children who he has ordained to die as children. Thus, the child being sacrificed by his father, the high priest of Moloch, could be saved while his father is damned. This is how Christ could save men of every nation, tribe, people, and tongue, including those nations which perished before they ever heard of Yahweh, the God of Israel, and of Jesus. This is how Abraham's seed could be more numerous than the sand of the sea or the stars of the heavens. The average married couple has 200-300 children they are not even aware of because those children died before their mother even knew she was pregnant. 7 billion people alive on earth right now. Say, 3.5 billion couples, each with 200-300 children they aren't aware of. By my count, that's 700, 000, 000 to 1, 050, 000, 000, 000 seeds of Abraham IN THIS GENERATION ALONE.

I have much, much more I could say about this (this is the barest of bare-bones argument I could make), Chris and Eli, but this is a comment on a YouTube video and TLDR already. 🤷‍♀️

[arthur]

Cornelius was already regenerated and converted (though some of his gathered friends and family may not have been). That's why scripture says he was righteous. Only people who are waiting in faith for the kingdom of God are righteous. What Cornelius received was Baptism in the Spirit and admittance into Christ's Church AS A GENTILE (rather than by converting to Judaism and becoming a Jew). Some people seem to have the bogus idea that no one in the Old Covenant administration of the Covenant of Grace was ever saved by God's grace through faith. That is dispensationalism. People who were saved in or under the OC or before that in the OT, were not saved by some other means than we were, like by their works, but by grace through faith just like us. The difference is that they did not have the permanent indwelling and empowerment of the Spirit for service prior to Pentecost.

[Svykle]

his argument falls apart when the desire question was asked, according to calvinism .

[arthur]

By definition, if God is omniscient and the creator of this philosophical world, then all events including the desires and decisions of the free creatures he created cannot be other than what God infallibly and exhaustively knew they would be from eternity logically prior to creating. Since God's decree to create this world occurred in eternity logically prior to his creation of this world, then all events which occur in the world he created are determined from eternity. Since God alone existed in eternity, all events in this world were determined by God because no one other than God existed in eternity to determine them. There is no escape from this conclusion. IF God created this world AND if he infallibly knew all events that will occur in this world logically prior to creating it AND if he existed alone logically prior to creating this world, THEN all events in this world are determined by God from eternity AND divine determinism is true. Short version: If God IS God (omniscient and the Creator of everything created), then all events are determined by him. Logically, it cannot be otherwise - just as scripture teaches.