Biblical Objections To Calvinism | Part 2 of 2 | Jesus Is Chosen & Elect

This is the second of 2 sermons given by Jordan Hatfield in 2015 where he explains biblical reasons why the doctrine of Calvinism is not true.

FIND MORE VIDEOS FROM GREAT LIGHT STUDIOS COVERING THE TOPIC OF CALVINISM HERE:

-------------------------------------------- SUPPORT --------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------- PODCAST --------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------- FILMS --------------------------------------------

METAMORPHOSIS | From Violent Drug Dealer To Jesus Follower

SEEK FIRST (Freedom From Anxiety And Fear)

-------------------------------------------- LINKS --------------------------------------------

[ashwinn.n]

Great explanation man! Could you help me understand just one thing?

First of all, here is how I understand your explanation.

1. Calvinism- God chooses you for the purpose of placing you 'in Christ'.

2. Your teaching- God has chosen you to have spiritual blessings 'in Christ'. The spiritual blessings would include adoption, holiness, righteousness..etc. We choose Christ and God chooses what we get from Christ.

This makes a lot of sense! Here is my question.

I was hoping you could answer this for me? I would really love to hear your thoughts on this.

We hear of many stories of people coming to faith because of a supernatural/direct revelation from God (through repeated dreams, visions, supernatural encounters, etc) -no evangelism was involved, they came to faith because Jesus 'visited' them (like a Damascus road experience). Clearly, God can do this for everyone. But why does He do this only for some (supposedly the elect) and not for everyone? Doesn't this show that God has chosen some to be placed in Christ?

[JohnTheBaptist]

I noticed this was recorded over four years ago, so has your understanding of what calvinism teaches changed? To be honest this was a poor representation of calvinism. I believe it would be more commendable of you to cite creditable sources (puritans, James White, Matt slick, Jeff Durbin, ect.) to better articulate your stance against on what the doctrine teaches. No one who clearly understands what the doctrine teaches would take the position that you are indicating. I really hope that you are willing to better research what the reformed position really is when it comes to unconditional election.