When Calvinists Use Free Will as Straw Man

BTF Clip: Kevin discusses why not to fall for the "free will" straw man when it is employed by Calvinists

Or Venmo @kevin-thompson-418
Or CashApp $kevinthompson418

Purchase the Original PowerPoint slide decks used in our other videos here:

Check out our Audio podcasts on iTunes Podcast or Soundcloud:

PLAYLISTS:
8 ‘A’s of Salvation” (pre-requisite salvation considerations before other inferences can be entertained)
“Christian Cognition” (learn about the things that affect data processing other than “the facts”)
“Full Stature Initiative” (follow presentations and group discussions of the Book of Acts)
“Acts 13:48” (videos that address this so-called “Calvinist proof text”)
“Calvinist Infiltration” (videos that address Calvinist infiltration into non-Calvinist churches)

BTF Uses the following Equipment and software to produce videos:
Camera: Sony Handycam FDR-AX53
Microphone: Sennheiser AVX Digital Wireless Mic System with Countryman H60W6TSR H6 Omnidirectional Wireless Headset; Shure SM7B, Rode NT1
Audio: Focusrite Scarlett 2i4
Video Editing Software: Final Cut Pro X,
Video Recording Software: Wirecast by Telestream, Zoom
Visual Aids: MS PowerPoint, Logos Bible Software

[jonathanfischer]

Kevin, I appreciate you and I'm with you brother. Just a heads-up: that's not the origin of "straw man." It's from military dummies. It's a fake soldier that's easy to thrust your spear and knock down because it's not the real enemy. Just as they set up a fake argument that's not the opponent's real argument so they can easily knock it down.

[a.k.]

I had a conversation with a calvinist just the other day and when I refused to argue free will with him he became discombobulated.

[carlosreira]

Calvinism may be defined as taking Augustinian pessimism to defeatism.

[bradbrown]

How do you proceed once you come to a conclusion after careful exegesis and hermeneutics of a text?
After careful study I believe Augustine starts the false doctrine of determinism. Why would I toss it ?

[ravissary]

I still don't buy the idea that agreeing with propositions derived from the inductive method makes me pre-commited to only validate those propositions whwn i read the bible.

[carlosreira]

Very good point. In this, Calvinists are using the same leverage employed by Luther from the beginning. "Free will" includes the problematic adjective "free." Luther knew we are "slaves to sin" and so how can we be said to be "free?" But Luther begins his "On Christian Liberty" with this paradox:
"The Christian is slave to non one. The Christian is slave to everyone."

Lesser minds than Luther seized upon the inherent ambiguities in the word and the idea to further their reformist agendas. Calvin would be a good example, but even Calvin did not deny freewill. Nor did he deny original sin. He did take Augustine rather further than Augustine had taken himself. Luther did also.

Even in Latin free will carried the same paradoxical connotation, but note well how Augustine defended free will in his earlier writing "De Libero Arbitrio Voluntatis, " which argued in short that God can't be blamed for the bad that mankind does:

So freewill was seen as part of the problem. Adam, created in God's image, is endowed with free will. He sins, by disobedience to God, and falls from a state of grace. He and Eve are banished from the garden and become the parents of all mankind, transmitting death and this thing called sin. But mankind does not lose freewill because mankind does not lose the image of God, at least not entirely. It is smeared up to a large extent.

Given Paul's appeals to Adam, and phrases like "in Adam, " we have a strong reason to assume something like a doctrine of original sin. But note sin is the penchant toward guilt, not guilt. "In that all sinned" is the clause Paul tacks on his universal condemnation of mankind.

We don't deny these things, but we deny the Calvinistic cartoon version of them. We also deny the non-scriptural elements of their appeals, and the strongly Gnostic flavor of their whole salvation economy.

Good work to the brothers who are pioneering this re-assessment of "Reformed" doctrine.

[ladillalegos]

Kevin sometimes feels like you just argue for arguing sake, feels like you just create a strategy to win a debate but you have your feet firmly planted mid air.

[Mike-qtjp]

Here is absolute Biblical proof that God does NOT cause or determine everything; In Jeremiah 19:5 God says, “They have built the high places of Baal to burn their children in the fire as offerings to Baal—something I did NOT COMMAND or mention, nor did it enter my mind.” 2nd Peter 3:9 says, “The Lord is…not willing that ANY should perish but that ALL should come to repentance.” and yet, it also has Jesus saying, "Broad is the road that leads to destruction (hell) and many are on it, but straight and narrow is the road that leads to life (Heaven) and few ever find it." So, as a Calvinist, do you really believe that God arbitrarily creates some people for one reason; to burn for eternity in hell?

[pipkinrahl]

Can you make, or do you have, a video that helps us combat the redefinition of terms that Calvinists use? For example, the redefinition of the term "all" to mean "only the elect" or "Whole World" to be "The whole world of the elect"

[mikelyons]

Funny how things play out. I have had good success (yes, yes all glory to God, please don't make me virtue signal) showing Calvies from Adam & Eve eating then taking it upon themselves to make inferior coverings, Sara suggesting a Hagar hookup to Abraham (another work of the flesh) how one can only learn & apply the wisdom of Proverbs, Balaam using his Prophet status for a side-hussle, Jonah disobeying, Saul vs David, then David & Bathsheba then his offing Uriah...as illustrations of our being created by God with free moral agency. Many Calvies have conceded. And, I always go back to "Because Scripture is true".

[patricklively]

I asked the Lord, Calvinist or Arminian? He said yes. Is Jesus the Lord and Savior of all? Yes. Is this public arguing more destructive than informative? yes. "You sneak up front, I"ll surround the house"

[bock]

got an idea for the title of your next video. "When anti Calvinists use Predestination as a straw man. "

[philipmusser]

So, you’re instructing non-Calvinists to not “take the bait” and debate Calvinists using free will as an argument. I understand that using “scriptural authority” is more than sufficient to refute the Calvinistic systematic belief, and that it is the stronger and better starting point. However, it seems weak or a path of avoidance to say you don’t advocate for arguing free will. If free will is a derivative of an axiomatic premise, it’s a strong derivative. It seems there is plenty of scripture that directly or indirectly indicates that free will (freedom of choice) is given and required to accept the gift of grace for salvation. I understand that arguing using free-will is more complicated, but I have concerns about telling us not to go there.

[TheJpep]

Everything opposed to calvinism is a straw man and anti-biblical.

[obrien]

I love the concept and points you make but freewill is in scripture. So you can start with freewill when you’re starting with scripture that either teaches it or literally says it. If a person is going to use a private definition of freewill then that’s a different story. The way in which they pervert freewill might not be in scripture.