Calvinism's Foresight Sin View

Calvinists often appeal to Romans 9 regarding God's choice of Jacob instead of Esau as proof for unconditional election since the twins were chosen "before they had done anything good or bad." But, wouldn't a consistent Calvinistic hermeneutic have God electing Esau to damnation without regard his sin?

Today we will look at Drs. John Piper and RC Sproul's ad hoc claim that God's election to reprobation takes into account the future sin of Esau (ie the reprobates) but His election to salvation doesn't take into account the future faith of Jacob (ie the elect).

If we understand that Paul is addressing the election of Israel to be the means by which all the families of the earth will be blessed, this is not a dilemma.

JOIN US FOR A LIVE CONVERSATION!

Or @soteriology101 on Twitter

Please SHARE on Facebook and Twitter and help spread the word!

[jakeofalltradesmusic]

I remember going to John Piper's podcast (because churches I attended are smitten with him) when I was really struggling spiritually with feeling like God didn't really love me. And his podcast basically said (paraphrasing), "Well, because you don't feel like God doesn't love you, that means you're not elect and He doesn't love you." That's been a huge heartbreak moment for me in my faith. Now that I've stumbled across someone who can refute Calvanism so clearly, I have more hope in God, though I must confess I'm not fully healed from that nor have my negative feelings towards John Piper fully gone away.

[falconguy]

Another excellent presentation of Calvinism’s inconsistencies. Thanks Leighton

[martingagnon]

Another one of those places where men will claim God contradicts Himself so long as it makes their theology ideas seem to work.

[JohnQPublic]

Watching Dr. Leighton Flowers beat-down Reformed Theology mumbo-jumbo is like watching the HULK take care of business in the final boss fight.

[jackdabbs]

From now on I'll be calling Calvinism Foresight Sin Soteriology.

[yvonnedoulos]

Another logical refutation of Calvinistic theology. Thank you, Dr. Flowers!

[thestraightroad]

I find your explanation of hardening to be…heartening. Do you have other videos that look at this issue? My husband thinks God is unfair because he “hardened Pharaoh’s heart.” I have read about the possibility that the hardening is not eternally fixed and this gives me hope for my husband. How do you think this parallels the story of the Prodigal? Can it be said that God “judiciously” cut him off for awhile until repentance? Is repentance a sovereign gift of God that may be prayed for? I’d appreciate your thoughts and thanks for an outstanding lesson.

Edit: I should have said, ‘not necessarily eternally fixed.” The point the author (I believe it was Michael Heiser) was making is that in the text it is nowhere said that Pharaoh’s (or other’s) hearts were eternally hardened. They may have remained hardened if the person chose to continue in hardness. Or, there may have been a repentance not seen by us. Sometimes we forget that the Bible does not comment or reveal everything about everyone’s life.

[primeobjective]

Calvinists pick & chose when to be logically consistent. If it sounds good, they'll be logical. If it makes their systematic unjust, they play dumb.

[jasonyoung]

Logic (sense) and Calvinism don’t go together. If it were based on sense, nobody would be a Calvinist.

[a.k.]

In order to avoid the charge of equal ultimacy, some calvinists (Sproul comes to mind) dive headlong into an inverse passover. That is to say, a passover that results in damnation, rather than salvation.

[R]

If it is not obvious yet to non-Calvinist Christians here, the reason some people become and remain Calvinists has nothing to do with any form of consistent or coherent theology. Instead, as much as they protest the same in others, their reason for their beliefs hinges entirely upon the emotional degree to which Calvinism resonates with their existing biases.

[DansplainingTheBible]

Thanks, Leighton. It’s always good to hear clear refutations of bad reasoning.

[Apollos.]

Another great video highlighting the contradictory nature of Calvinism. This idea would never be tolerated if the discussion was "salvation by faith or faith plus works".
To claim the Bible teaches both, in either scenario, would denigrate the clarity or perspicuity of scripture.

[raymatthews]

The Calvinists never mention the verses in Hebrews 12 that tell why Esau was rejected.

[coreylapinas]

This is a brilliant argument. Thanks Dr. Flowers.

[SC-zdhr]

This opened my eyes, thank you so much.

[malvokaquila]

God decreed before the foundations of the world for Calvanists to not understand what their systematic explains.

[theologicaldarkweb]

Rather than saying "My false presupposition lead to contradiction therefore I'm wrong" doesn't it sound way more spiritual to say "This is one of the hidden things that belongs to the Lord?"

[sdgarrison]

Also, what would be Paul’s point in saying “not of works but of Him who calls” (Rom. 9:11) if God unchangeably determined what their works would be? On Calvinism, there’s no meaningful distinction between “of works” and “not of works”.

[Mike-hrjz]

I have friends who are Calvinist. and I believe they use this as their excuse, to avoid holiness and this is why they cling so tightly to their Soteriology .it gives them relief for the continuous sining and guilt after all gods more glorify when they sin under this premise .how convoluted. As well as hypocritical and they can never know if they’re saved or not really because if one of them turns back they’ll swear up-and-down they were never saved in the first place the pretzel logic runs deep with these people. James White the pretzel Master!