The Errors of Calvinism

[xJRGx]

Calvinist say “It’s all in God’s hands” every other denomination say “accept and try your best or else..”. It was the Calvinistic Christian’s that taught me how to truly rely on God’s word and promises while other churches taught I was the problem of not feeling safe in God. “It’s is finished” was correct

[philipmurray]

You are saved by grace, through faith, and that not of yourself, it is a gift of God. So that no man shall boast.

No one would claim the grace is of yourself, so what is Paul saying is a gift? It is the faith. God has granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life. (Acts 11:18)

[lawrencestanley]

Free will? Sir, we need to recognize that the Bible never talks about man’s freedom in the sense of having the autonomous ability of contrary choice (a common definition of “free will”). Aside from a few passages in scripture that speak of “free will” in the sense of the giving of an offering that was not a compulsory law in Israel, whenever scripture speaks of man’s freedom, it is always in reference to Christ setting an individual free from his slavery to sin (cf. Galatians 2:4, 5:1, 13, Hebrews 2:14-15, John 8:32-36, Romans 6:6, 16-20, 8:15, 2 Corinthians 3:17). However, there is no freedom for man once he is set free from sin, for either he is a slave to sin, or he is a slave to God (Romans 6:17-18, 22, 1 Corinthians 7:22, 1 Peter 2:16, Ephesians 6:6, Colossians 3:24), but either way, he is a slave. Since a slave is not the master of his own will, but instead does the will of his master who owns him, and scripture says that the slave desires to do his master’s will, cf. Psalm 40:8, John 8:44, and that his desire is from God (1 Corinthians 15:10, Philippians 2:13), therefore any notion that suggests that man has a free will in the libertarian sense (the autonomous ability of contrary choice) is a false notion, antagonistic to the teaching of scripture.

[danplyler]

Calvinism does not deny free will. It does not. Man is a slave to sin and has all the freedom of the will, but due to his depraved state, has no interest in the things of God. If and when God bestows his Grace upon the sinner, the heart is regenerate and faith becomes a true reality.

[tonwerks]

John 6:44 No one comes to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. “You contribute nothing to your salvation except the sin that made it necessary.” -Jonathan Edwards

[Kenny_Doyle]

I consider myself a Calvinist but maybe I will watch this series to try and learn more

[jackgtx]

It’s interesting you bring up Ephesians 2. Verse 8 says that the saving faith we have is a gift from God. It is not of ourselves.

[davescozz]

Calvin disagreed with Arminian. That’s why he created the acronym. Calvinism does NOT deny free will. You don’t understand.

[mrgransport]

Man is totally deprived. Left to his own works he will never find Gods Grace unto salvation. Look at the world! You don’t think man is totally depraved? It is only by Gods call that we find Him.

[dylansaurusrex]

Calvin didn't invent TULIP. Arminians invented an acrostic, reformed theologians invented another acrostic to counter arminians.

Also, SO many unsupported claims in this video. No free will = unbiblical... How? Where is free will taught in scripture? Free will is simply overlayed on top of scripture.

[geraldpolmateer]

Calvinism ignores the commands in the Bible.

[lawrencestanley]

God doesn't "make" people believe as if He forces anyone to do anything, but it is true that man's faith is the definite result of God's work.

Let's look at John 6:29 which you referenced, but let's look at it in context, and according to the language used, not according to a preconceived narrative.

Jesus had been performing miraculous signs on those who were sick, and so a large crowd had flocked around Him (John 6:1-2). After Jesus miraculously feeds the 5, 000 by multiplying the loaves and the fish (John 6:4-13), the crowd thought that He was the Prophet of Deuteronomy 18:15 (John 6:14), but as we will see, they had a very wrong idea of who the Messiah would be. That night, the disciples crossed the sea to Capernaum, followed by Jesus who walked on the sea and met them in the boat on their way (John 6:16-21). The next day, after the crowd had followed them in boats to the other side of the sea, they were hungry again (John 6:22-26), and remembering the miracle of the multiplication of the loaves and fish, they came to Him hoping for more food, but what they got instead was a chastisement because they were seeking the wrong kind of food (John 6:27, 35); they were seeking a Messiah who met their physical needs (healing from sickness and a satisfied hunger), rather than their spiritual needs. So, seeing that He was not going to miraculously feed them again, they asked Jesus “what shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?” Notice that they did NOT ask, “what shall we do to be saved?” Because that is NOT what they cared about; they wanted miracle food; they did not even understand that physical food wasn’t even the point of everything that Jesus had been doing, and spiritual matters didn’t even seem to be on their mind, so they thought that if He wasn’t going to do it for them, then maybe this is a power that they could obtain by some work (“what must we do?”) so that they could produce food out of thin air all by themselves. This is the same mistake that will be seen later in Acts 8:18ff where Simon, after seeing the miraculous power of the Spirit, thought that the power of God could be bought with money, and was subsequently chastised by Peter (Acts 8:20-24). What Jesus does next is to use their own words against them in order to explain that His teaching was never about actual, physical food, but spiritual food, and that this spiritual food is not something that can be worked for or earned, but just as God gave them manna in the desert that they did not deserve, and they ate and survived; this spiritual food, authored by God Himself (cf. Hebrews 12:2, Philippians 1:6, 2:13) must be given, whereupon the recipient doesn’t receive mere physical sustenance, but everlasting life; as He said before in John 4:14, the water of life must be given by God, the same is true of the bread of life (John 6:27), no one can work for it or earn it, and no one can produce it themselves. And this is not a food that can be refused, for Jesus declares that “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out” (John 6:37).

Note that in John 6:27, 35, Jesus calls Himself the “bread of life, ” and He declares that the “bread of life” is the “food which endures to eternal life” which “the Son of Man will give to you” (cf. John 6:29, Hebrews 12:2, Philippians 1:6, 2:13), equating the eating of the bread with believing (John 6:35-40, 43-51). Back in John 3:16, He had said that God gave the Son in order that “all the believing ones shall have eternal life, ” so we see a clear, causal link where the giving of the Son brings about the certain result of man’s belief and his eternal life; that “anyone who eats of this bread (which the Son of Man will give), he will live forever” (John 6:50-51), and “whoever drinks of the water that I will give him shall never thirst; but the water that I will give him will become in him a well of water springing up to eternal life” (John 4:14), and indeed, that is precisely what John 6:29 is teaching – that God’s work of the giving of the Son brings about the certain result of belief in man; after all, God is the author of our faith (Hebrews 12:2).

John 6:29 reads, “τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ ἔργον τοῦ θεοῦ, ἵνα πιστεύητε εἰς ὃν ἀπέστειλεν ἐκεῖνος.” “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.” (cf. Hebrews 12:2, Philippians 1:6, 2:13)

Note that the word “ἵνα” separates the two clauses of the sentence; this is what is known as a “hina” clause. The word literally means “for the purpose that, ” “in order that, ” “looking to the aim (intended result)” of the verbal idea. It is the way to link two clauses, expressing causality between them: “A” happened to bring about the certain result of “B.”

Essentially, a “hina clause” is a “purpose” clause that follows a subjunctive participle. The “purpose” clause changes the subjunctive mood (which we think of as possibility or probability) to a statement of definite result. It’s the difference between saying “I might come over later if the feeling strikes me” and “I brought food to the hungry that they might eat.” The first statement is a possibility. But, the second statement contains a purpose, so in Greek grammar that changes the mood, letting the reader know that the participle (in this case “might” or “may”) has a definite force.

Incidentally, we see the same clause in John 3:16 – “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that (ἵνα) all the believing ones on Him may not perish, but may have eternal life.”

In John 6:29, the sentence could well read: “This is God’s work, to bring about the definite result that (ἵνα) you believe in Him whom He has sent.” That is, your belief is the definite result of God’s work.

The sovereign work of God brings about a certain purpose: “that you believe.” So what is the sovereign work of God? Was the “work of God” simply the miracle of the multiplying of the loaves in hopes that in seeing this miracle, men might believe? No, that was merely the object lesson, the work of God is the giving of the water of life (John 4:14); it is the giving of the bread of life (John 6:27), and it is this giving by God that brings about man’s definite response of believing.

This isn't "Calvinism, " this is simply what the Bible says.

[royharp]

thats wrong. your not understanding some fundamental concepts of reason which are cause and effect. John Calvin never sad that.

[votedbush]

Why do people make these videos? He clearly doesn't get it. He didn't even get the Roman Catholic position right.

[jimmyv]

To demonstrate your ignorance on the matter, Calvin did not come up with TULIP or the terms connected with it. Calvin's followers came up with it several decades after Calvin's death in response to an Arminian challenge, and crafted the terms in order to make an acrostic. "Total" means comprehensive in scope. I.e., it effects every one of man's faculties, while those faculties are not necessarily completely ruined. God does not "make" a man believe. He awakens him so he CAN believe. You also have to deal with this statement by Jesus, "For this reason I have said to you that no one CAN (is capable) come to Me unless it has been granted him by the Father." (John 6:65) If Jesus says NO man is capable, then how do you say that EVERY man is capable?

[jackgtx]

You misrepresent Calvin and basically all Calvinists at 2:38. You said even if man wanted to believe, he couldn’t. This is 100% false. There is no man who wants to believe without first having his nature regenerated by God.

Rom 8:6-8 says that the mind of flesh is unable to subject itself to the Law of God.
1 Cor 2:14 also says the natural man (unregenerated) does not and CANNOT understand the things of the Spirit of God.

So no, there is no such thing as someone who wants to believe but can’t. That’s an argument that doesn’t even exist.

[royharp]

hope you know that you agreeing with Pelagus