Matt Slick Live- Debate with Lou Rugg on Calvinism

Matt Slick asks difficult questions on Calvinism that Lou Rugg cannot answer. Originally airing on December 17, 2013 using Paltalk.

[ManassehJones]

Clearly, Lou believes in a works based, self willed false gospel.

[AmericanWithTheTruth]

Lou rugg completely comes unraveled at 1:04:50. He leaves scripture at this point and the arguments and looses focus and calls Matt out for not giving an answer for something Matt humbly acknowledged he would need time to think about. From the outside it looks like his canned script found a dead end and when pressed to think and give a response to a point he was not prepared for he deflects and places blame. He definitely could have handled that better.

[britton]

I can answer his question pretty easily. "Pharoah refused to let the Israelites go after being asked on 9 seperate occasions." Pharoah did indeed refuse (one example is Exodus 10:3&11) and Pharoah refused because he was unable allow them to leave because God violated the so called "free will" that Lou believes Pharoah had by hardening his heart (Exodus 10:20). The story of Moses and Pharaoh is a WONDERFUL example of God's sovereignty over His creation and the events that take place speak directly AGAINST any type of "free will" doctrine.

[metalmachine]

Matt Slick wasn't so slick in this show.  Matt got destroyed.

[monsterhuntervideos]

jerichosfurmato

I don't think any of scripture contradicts itself as I truly know that the Bible is the Word of God. There are, however, paradoxes in scripture that I don't think can ever be solved because we're trying to understand the workings of an infinite mind with our fallen finite minds. Scripture is very clear that we're responsible before God to believe the Gospel and there are open invitations that call people to do so. At other times scripture talks about God drawing us or making us born from above. Scripture declares both our freewill or choice and God's sovereignty at the same time, but scripture does not give a detailed description of how these two truths work together in harmony. We can come up with our own philosophical explanations, but they will always only be the partial truth and not the full picture. From our point of view we need to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and we experience that as a real decision we have made, yet we understand that God is Sovereign at the same time, even if that is a conundrum for us.

[CBALLEN]

Lou doesn't hate Calvinism, He really hates God and His word.I love it when the non-reformed claim, "Calvinists say no one can come to Christ unless the Father causes it, ".Calvinists claim this because the Bible says this.

[ETHANGELIST]

God also commands every person to obey His law perfectly even though we all know no man is able and yet they are responsible for breaking it. Why is this different from God commanding every person to repent and believe and yet they are unable and yet responsible for their disbelief, unrepentance and refusal?

[michaelyiannett]

I thought Lou Rugg more than answered the "tough" questions.

[monsterhuntervideos]

Continued from previous comment:

to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? [36] For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.

Isaiah 55:9 KJV
[9] For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

Deuteronomy 29:29 KJV
[29] The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.

1 Corinthians 13:12 KJV
[12] For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

It never seems to cross the Calvinist's and Arminian's mind that maybe they both see through a dark glass and both only have a vague picture in regards to this issue. There's scripture to support both sides, which should hint at the full knowledge being a mystery, only presently known in the mind of God.

[jpaganx]

Forgive my facetious questioning on "why even do the great commission?". But explain this The Westminster Confession, III:6, says that only the “elect” are “effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved.” It then further defines that justification through the atoning work of CHRIST is for those predestined to salvation? If by predestination it is taught that the Father knows who are His (John 17, Eph 1) then absolutely, but all indications here conclude a teaching of a selected elect. If the Holy Spirit moves on all men (John 16:8-10, Acts 17) then why is it taught as limited? My sarcasm is, if a pre-group of people are already selected as "elect" what's the purpose of evangelism if "grace is "irresistible" and it's the complete sovereignty of God that saves people with no effort of the freewill, why even evangelize? Calvinism dismisses the choice of an individual to choose whether or not they surrender to Gods will, it also teaches that who God chooses cannot lose their salvation based on its definition of preserving the saints, but what about CHRIST rebuke to the churches in revelation 2-7? I don't believe I'm misunderstanding Calvinism at all, I believe the point is clear that Calvinism teaches as gospel where God is not just because you an essence are destined to fail if you're not elect, it also strips responsibility of the believer in regards to holiness and walking in salvation in regards to perseverance. My confusion is this, how is the doctrine a message of CHRIST salvation to the world is those who are chosen are already fixed? How is this the John 3:16 we were taught in elementary SUNDAY school?

[inrealitywetrust]

It's so much easier to be an atheist.

[JesusWordApologetics]

What the synergist is saying; I can't trust Jesus to choose those who will serve Him.

[cco]

Here would be my response to Rugg's request for a sentence: "God refuses to lie."

[jpaganx]

No man can be saved unless the Holy Spirit draws him (1 Corinthians 12:3), at this point it is a pre-appointed time when God deals with the heart of the man (Acts 17:26-27). Now, no man can be saved unless the Holy Spirit first begins His work on that individual (John 16:8-10, 16), but that person can harden their heart by refusing to turn at the rebuke/conviction of the Lord (Proverbs 1:23, 29).

Salvation through freewill, is not a God sovereignty issue (by minimizing or reducing the sovereignty of God making Him contingent on the will of man), it is however the greatest measure of His love towards mankind (BECAUSE HE IS SOUVREIGN), by giving us the choice to surrender to His love, after His Spirit has convicted us of our sin,  rather than force us. John 3:16, God loves the world, and gave Jesus for the salvation of the world, not just a few, not just a selected group, and it is our choice of refusing His sacrifice, and the conviction of the Holy Spirit that makes us condemned (John 3:18).  

Freewill has been the model, since the garden. God placing the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the center of the garden giving man the choice of life and death from the very beginning. For in the day that you eat of this fruit you shall surely die. (Genesis 2:17) Freewill, does not reduce the greatness of the sovereignty of God, rather it makes Him even more sovereign that because God is love (1 John 4:8), He allows us (KEY WORD ALLOWS US) to respond to true love out of the freewill. How is love genuine out of force?

[TheLightning]

I Usually agree with Matt on many things, but not this time, I will counter his view Scripturally,  1 Peter 1:1-2, "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the pilgrims of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappodocia, Asia, and Bithynia, elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace be multiplied." (New King James Version)
The Greek word for the word translated "foreknowledge" is transliterated "Prognosis" and is the noun which is the basis of its verb "Proginosko". Prognosis is used in Acts 2:23, which speaks of God the Father's foreknowledge that unbelieving Israel would deliver His Son up to be crucified. Its verb form is used in Rom. 8:29; Acts 26:5; Rom. 11:2; 1 Pet. 1:20 and 2 Pet. 3:17. All of the uses of this word, in either its noun or verb form, mean a knowing of events before they happen, and are part of the omniscient nature of God.

Therefore, the verse quite clearly says that the elect were chosen based on the foreknowledge of God the Father. Please notice the grammar, in that the elect were chosen "...according to the foreknowledge of God the Father". The text doesn't say that they were elected or chosen in conjunction with God's foreknowledge, but rather "according to" His foreknowledge. The logical conclusion then is that God used His foreknowledge in choosing the elect.

Therefore, the Calvinist theologians contention that God elects someone to salvation without using His foreknowledge to make some determination in choosing the elect, is flatly contradicted by this verse. Clearly, on the basis of God’s foreknowledge about people, He makes the choice.

[tdickensheets]

Paul uses the example of Pharaoh to illustrate his point. Pharaoh rejected God over and over, and that was the ruler's choice (Romans 9:17) Pharaoh refused to believe God and submit to Him. Is God to be blamed for Pharaoh ultimately rejecting God, especially after God showed him who He was by demonstrating His power repeatedly in bringing the plagues? God's bringing the plagues was God demonstrating His power to Pharaoh to persuade Him to obey God and let Israel go. Pharaoh could have believed and obeyed God, but he chose rather to reject Him in the face of overwhelming evidence. Paul asked the question, "What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid." (Rom. 9:14) In other words, is God at fault for Pharaoh's condemnation? The answer is "of course not" . . . Pharaoh condemned himself by rejecting God. There is plainly no support in this passage for God electing some to hell denying them the opportunity to believe and be saved.

The statement that God "hardened Pharaoh's heart" means that God permitted Pharaoh to resist Him. God did not make Pharaoh reject Him; that is the point Paul is making. Genesis 6:3, states that the Holy Spirit will not always "strive" with man. God does seek to guide and direct man, but in time, if the man resists God, the Holy Spirit will stop seeking to win Him and leave that man to his own devices. Man's rejection of God does not allow God to work; God will not violate a man's will. He will allow men to remain, as men choose, to be blind and hardened in their heart rejecting God. God further states, "What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid." (Romans 9:14) God is not unrighteous which means He does that which is right. By God's own principles He is a God of mercy. "For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy." (Romans 9:15-16) The Lord is saying that no one has any special hold on God because of who he is or his position. God's nature is to offer grace and to show mercy without restriction. That is exactly what He did with Pharaoh. He repeatedly revealed Himself to Pharaoh through the plagues. God was doing what was right and offering Him salvation. Pharaoh rejected God and refused to believe. Thus Pharaoh condemned Himself. The blame rests on Pharaoh, not God. God was righteous in offering His mercy to Pharaoh. It is a gross misinterpretation to suggest God that revealed Himself to Pharaoh all the while knowing He would not allow Pharaoh to respond in faith. "For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declare throughout all the earth." (Romans 9:17) If Pharaoh could not have responded then God would be unrighteous.

God is not to blame for the damnation of a man who chooses to be blind and harden his heart against the urging of the Holy Spirit. God has gone to great lengths to bring men to Himself (Romans 1:20-21). God does not force man to believe or accept Him. He allows them to resist and exercise their own wills. Pharaoh's heart was hardened because he was a sinful, proud man who would not give up his sin. He valued the slave labor of the Hebrews more than his own soul. He chose to reject God's truth as John 3:19-20 says "And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved." James 1:13-14 says that God does not tempt men. God presented to Pharaoh the truth of who He was and what was His will. He did not tempt Pharaoh with the intent to prevent Pharaoh from accepting Him. To the contrary He revealed Himself to the Egyptian ruler that he might believe. Pharaoh refused to believe God for his own reasons and the blame rests solely with him. Pharaoh was condemned by his unbelief and by his own sinful nature (John 3:19-20, James 1:14-15). Nothing in this passage supports the idea that God in His sovereignty has decreed who He would or would not allow to be saved. God did decree that all who believed would be saved.

[AndrewFordham]

Lou's position here is patently false.God commands all people everywhere to repent.However, no one can come to Him unless he is drawn by the Father.John 6 alone wrecks Lou's argument.God does not command anything based on human ability.He commands what He commands based on His holy nature.

[tdickensheets]

The five-point Calvinists, however, see problems with four-point Calvinism. First, they argue, if Total Depravity is true, then Unlimited Atonement cannot possibly be true because, if Jesus died for the sins of every person, then whether or not His death is applicable to an individual depends on whether or not that person “accepts” Christ. But as we have seen from the above description of Total Depravity, man in his natural state has no capacity whatsoever to choose God, nor does he want to. In addition, if Unlimited Atonement is true, then hell is full of people for whom Christ died. He shed His blood in vain for them. To the five-point Calvinist, this is unthinkable. Please note: this article is only a brief summary of the five points of Calvinism. For a more in-depth look, please visit the following pages: Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints.

[jpaganx]

I think this is pretty clear...correct me if I'm wrong?

T -- total depravity. This doesn't mean people are as bad as they can be. It means that sin is in every part of one's being, including the mind and will, so that a man cannot save himself.

U -- unconditional election. God chooses to save people unconditionally; that is, they are not chosen on the basis of their own merit.

L -- limited atonement. The sacrifice of Christ on the cross was for the purpose of saving the elect.

I -- irresistible grace. When God has chosen to save someone, He will.

P -- perseverence of the saints. Those people God chooses cannot lose their salvation; they will continue to believe. If they fall away, it will be only for a time.

[robertcary]

I'm going to study this a lot more, for me it could be the American terms used which is hard for me ? the one thing I have to ask why was the subject of Calvinism and the words reformed theology were not posted on the very long statement of faith, even those CARM do a great Job, thanks Bob