Arminianism: With Dr. Ben Witherington III

[@kachymuzik]

This is certainly one of my best episodes; clear and valid argument. I agree with Arminianism

[@Melynn13]

You both asked Dr. Witherington so many important questions. This was so concise for the grace of Arminianism. Great info.

[@PoesieUndGlaube]

"All of our theology systems have human elements in it and flaws. Nobody has got the biblical theology nailed down perfectly and so there needs to be some humility in our theological discussions." Great footnote at the end!

[@michaelbrickley2443]

Dr. Scott taught that neither Calvinism or Arminianism thinking will save us. Only faith in Jesus and our growth in Jesusness, day to day, from year to year, will save us. As disciples we need to be trying to be more like Him and less like the old man who is forever lurking. Shalom

[@bobbycecere1037]

Considering how each denomination within Christianity formed, I always assumed that statement to be self-evident. Basically in each case we have one guy giving the world his personal interpretation of a handful of scriptures. That exegesis then colors everything else he believes. The only thing that surprises me is how the hermeneutics of some believers stand the test the time and strongly influence the rest of us, while others do not.

[@michaelbrickley2443]

@@bobbycecere1037 the biggest problem we have is when we start calling doctrinal differences dividing lines and those who follow Calvinism are saved and Arminianists are going to hell. The first schism was about where the Holy Spirit came from, the Father or the Son. The trinity is a mystery and we do our best to understand the Godhead with our puny words. Shalom

[@bobbycecere1037]

@@michaelbrickley2443 A mystery you say. I don't think there's anything at all mysterious about the relationship between the father and son. That's the reason that language was was even used, because humans understand the relationship between a father and a son perfectly well.

[@michaelbrickley2443]

@@bobbycecere1037 I’m happy for you. Now add in the Holy Spirit

[@mikefoht2738]

This is your best show you guys have ever done. Great tough questions and incredible answers. You were blessed to be able to interview such a knowledgable teacher.

[@stephenhollis7491]

Best explanation of God's Love and Salvation that I have ever been exposed

[@nevarezomar]

Good for you. To me is one that provides no hope in God, but in our chance to do it right at the end of the day. Also, is one that is just based on shallow interpretation on verses, self definitions of biblical terms and experience based arguments. The best part was when he said Assurance is not the same as Guarantee. Why? Because he said so. No further explanation at least to defend that poor point. Anyways, good for you.

[@koraegis]

hm, if that is the case you may want to consider RC Spoul, Johm Piper, Alistair Begg..! :))

[@sishrac]

@@nevarezomar You'd prefer a monstrous God who is so insecure that he'd micro-manage his creation? Assurance and guarantee may be close in meaning but nuanced in implication. Assurance implies conditionality while guarantee, not so. God's elect had always been given a condition to enter the promised land. Post the cross, the condition is to be 'IN CHRIST'.

[@nevarezomar]

@@sishracGod does manage his creation as the only Sovereign God that there is. He does not hide this reality, but openly expresses it throughout the Bible. The reason will never be insecurity but clarity. God made us from the dust and that is who we are without him. It's his grace that is always intermediating to even keep us alive, but his grace is free and it is given freely according to his good purpose which is set by God beforehand (see Jeremiah 9:23-24) Let me ask you a question: Did you chose the day your were born in the flesh? How can you choose the say you will be born in the Spirit? These are two separate births, neither of them can be determined by the own person. In regard to assurance and guarantee, these concepts are bound, and one depends on the other to be real. Assurance with no guarantee is a fake assurance and viceversa. That is what arminian soteriology is based on. No real guarantee that produces no real assurance.

[@featurebroadcast297]

Excellent discussion.

[@Aquines]

Great to hear Dr Ben talk on Arminianism I went to see and hear him at Trinity College Dublin and also at the Irish Bible Institute some years ago I learned a lot from his insight into scripture God Bless Brian from Dublin Ireland

[@stephenwooten6413]

I really enjoyed hearing someone articulate how I understand the scriptures, with even some new insightful wording. This is one of the best in my mind and that's probably due to the fact that I find Calvinism to be so hard to credit to the God of the bible. Yet, I want to stay away from identifying with a man that isn't Jesus and say I am, Jacob Arminian and not John Calvin, rather may God's grace work in us to bring us to a fuller view of Jesus Christ so we might grow in grace and the knowledge of him. Thanks guys, love this one.

[@MariusVanWoerden]

His not Latinized name was Jacob Hermanszoon (Zoon means Son)

[@budcurtis4512]

Great explanation by Dr Ben, as usual. Very clear.

[@jamesbertram7925]

I have studied the bible since I became a Christian for sixty three years ago and this discussion is one of the best I have ever listened to and because of this I want to ask you all for an answer to the following foundational enigma-----The Enigma of why a Good God who Created the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil very Good with the rest of Creation, in Genesis chapter 1v31. Prohibits His Very Good creatures from Partaking of the very Good Fruit that He created, and more enigmatically, prohibits these very Good creatures from partaking and possessing the knowledge of good and evil that Their Creator eternally possesses, according to Genesis chapter 3v22.

[@shiningbright3925]

Great Explanation.Praise the Lord👍❤️ Hallelujah

[@kachymuzik]

I agree with the 'Sealing' explanation. Sometimes i think we absolutise certain scriptures and take them beyond the extent to which they are intended

[@joshuamorris8994]

Enjoyed the podcast as usual. Dr. Roger Olson is probably one of the closest to Classical/Arminian Theology Scholars that is out there. His book Arminian Theology Myths and Realities is a classic.

[@emidior7948]

Loved the analogy of the pen and Shakespeare,so eloquent,logical and accurate

[@chaddonal4331]

Actually, it would seem that Shakespeare’s pen is a better analogy for Calvinism. All the acting is done by the Author. The pen is a mere passive instrument. Within Arminianism the instrument is actually active; not the source- but still an active receiver. This is consistent with John 1 “as many as received… by believing” and Eph. 2:8 “by grace … through faith”. So, the theology is correct, but Ben needs a better analogy!

[@lesliedavis4366]

Love this!

[@torelgo3230]

Wow. I love this! Thank you for this video. God bless you all.

[@AntwanRSmith]

Another great program, I greatly appreciate Dr. Ben’s insights.

[@koraegis]

The Spirit communicates what Christ purchased for them (the elect) 👍

[@chaddonal4331]

Arminianism (and the Wesleyan adaptation) takes seriously all the relevant scriptures, including the apostasy warnings and the need to pursue holiness, righteousness, work out your salvation, and walk with the Spirit and don’t quench the Spirit. By contrast, Calvinism acknowledges these verses, but inherently diminishes them of their practical pursuit through its commitment to determinism, where God has already ordained everything that shall come to pass. With Arminianism, these commands actually have real force, and require that we need to participate with God (His grace enabling our faith) and with the Spirit to accomplish God’s callings for us. The process is not automated, but actually requires our faithful participation in contradistinction to our rebellion. Calvinism, inevitably results in any rebellion, apostasy, grieving the spirit, etc., as all being necessarily ordained by God, and outside of the control of the person who acts in disobedience. It doesn’t seem as if Calvinists have truly wrestled through the implications of determinism on their system toward apostates, or the lost.

[@brandi_w]

This was awesome. So much more to study!! Thanks Dr. Witherington.

[@thebark_barx6231]

@The Remnant Radio I would recommend y’all to reach out to Dr. Matthew Pinson from Welch College in Tennessee. Or a former professor- Robert E. Picirilli. Welch holds to a Reformed Arminian view which is Classical Arminianism. Maybe look at a conversation with Dr. Matthew Pinson on Reformed Arminianism to spark an interest on the view which is said to be as close to Arminius’ understanding on soteriology

[@chaddonal4331]

Can you speak to this term, "Reformed Arminianism"? At first hearing, it sounds like a later view that has reformed the original conception from Arminius. But you are calling it "Classical". Hmmm... So, is the label simply meaning that original Arminianism is also of the "Reformed" lineage? i.e. against Calvinists who want to apply the "Reformed" label to themselves only -- as the true heritage-keepers? Is this a name intending to reclaim the "reformed" heritage for Arminius?

[@thebark_barx6231]

@@chaddonal4331 reformed Arminianism is a term that is reflect Arminius teaching and being inline in the reformation heritage as you guessed. It to distinguish it from all the different strands of Arminianisms out there. Men Like Dr. Picirilli and Leroy Forlines, and Dr. Matthew J. Pinson are good representations of the soteriological framework

[@chaddonal4331]

@@thebark_barx6231 Thank you. I will look them up. Is Roger Olsen also among them?

[@thebark_barx6231]

@@chaddonal4331 I think Olsen does ascribe to Reformed Arminian but I am not certain. I have not read his works on soteriology. Leroy Forlines Randall house has a great commentary on Romans from what I hear. I’m reading a systematic theology book his done called The Quest for Truth which is really good

[@tmorganriley]

@@chaddonal4331 I have Olson's "Arminian Theology" in front of me, in which he wrote that he does consider himself a classical Reformed Arminian (i.e. the position explored by Arminius within the Reformed tradition and his successors. "Reformed" here = "within the Swiss-French-Dutch tradition of Zwingli, Calvin, &c", as opposed to the German Reformation of Luther and the English Reformation traditions), as opposed to the later semi-Pelagian positions sometimes called Arminianism (especially derogatorilly by hyper-Calvinists who might consider anything short of 4- or 5- point Calvinism as heretical)

[@beowulf.reborn]

The point about seals can be broken, is very sobering. The whole point of a seal is that it can be broken, and if on Judgement Day we have broken the seal, then there is no guaranty that God will receive us.

[@williamphelps4552]

Very insightful. I am a big jumbled up mess between agreeing and disagreeing right now. Definitely lots of food for thought and contemplation. He certainly isn't afraid to attack a "boogey man" argument head on.

[@nevarezomar]

I agree with you. That is what I like of this program. I am a calvinist, but I respect those who can state what they think on this topic in a open and respectful way.

[@ryandawson2877]

Great discussion.

[@missionsbibleministry]

One thing: Your thumbnail says Classical Arminian Soteriology, but Ben Witherington III is Wesleyan. It's confusing and we are Classical Arminians :)

[@koraegis]

When he said "we accepted Christ" alarms went off. Dead men don't grab.... God did a work and has given us life and new desires and affections... The sovereignty of God in salvation is the most hated doctrine and it is what the bible says. Otherwise God would not be God. But I still love the Arminian brothers. They are trying to get God off the hook. It makes me sad but let's me know that what I know is real and true. Thanks be to God for such sight. Amazing grace.

[@chaddonal4331]

See John 1:12. Then re-read it light of John 1:9 and 1:16. Notice how BW3 talks about “enabling grace”. Now put these verses together: The light of God’s enabling grace comes to all thru Christ - in some sense. Those who “receive and believe” then become children of God (v12. “born of God”, v.13). Then converted ones receive the grace upon grace thru Christ - as we are regenerated as the people of God. This is the gospel - so clearly laid out in John 1!

[@adamduarte895]

Regeneration doesn’t logically precede faith biblically which is the implication of what you just said and classical reformed understanding of this topic. You’d be very hard pressed to find that scripturally consistently taught

[@jerardosc9534]

Classical reformed arminians believe in penal substitutionary atonement, the imputation of Christ’s righteousness in justification, and progressive sanctification (NOT entire sanctification) Witherington holds to Wesleyan Arminianism not Classical (Reformed) Arminianism which is why he rejects the classical doctrines listed above (im not sure if he holds to entire or progressive sanctification) The thumbnail should be changed to wesleyan arminianism like you guys said at 4:24 differentiating the two Love Ben though and his work. Great program

[@jenex5608]

Wesleyan Arminiansm hold to Penal substitution

[@jerardosc9534]

@@jenex5608 Wesleyans can hold to penal substitution. Wesley himself held to penal substitution yet he modified it in 2 ways. In wesleys view, the atonement consisted of Christ’s passive obedience, his bearing the divine penalty for sin, not his positive fulfillment of the law, he also asserted that Christ atoned only for the believer’s past sins. It is a minority view in the wesleyan tradition today yet some still hold to a more reformed view of the atonement like Thomas Oden and I Howard Marshall. The moral government view of atonement would be the majority view I read Ben Witherington’s review of WLC Atonement book and it seems Ben holds to PS as well.

[@chaddonal4331]

It sounds like classical arminianism is more robust. New converts OUT of Calvinism can be thrown off of viable places to land when the fruit of Methodism has spawned: legalism, liberalism, pentecostalism, perfectionism, revivalism, and additional troubling offshoots. Something seems to be amiss in the soup. Leaves some of us wondering where the true, orthodox adherents are -- who are fully committed to Scripture's teachings and have left Calvinism.

[@Over-for-now]

Iam SO thankful THAT l don't need these men for the FINISHED work that Jesus accomplished COMPLETELY

[@koraegis]

To suppose that the Holy Spirit quickens only those who believe, but this is to put the cart before the horse. Faith is not the cause of the New Birth, but the consequence of it. A. W. Pink

[@mayorrodgers7446]

Good stuff

[@Over-for-now]

FORGET man's ideas. GOD receives ALL the GLORY and HE WILL NOT share HIS GLORY with another

[@charlespackwood2055]

Faith comes by hearing... the Word of God which is spirit (of faith) and life. If you receive His Word that you heard, you receive the same spirit of faith and resurrection life, which is the Word of Christ. His Words are Spirit and Life. When received, resurrection life enters your spirit. As you "abide in Him" you continue in resurrection (zoe) life.

[@bellie888]

I think Grace in the Old Testament is called "Loving kindness" - maybe not a direct equivalence but close.

[@Scotts.Christianity.Teaching]

I updated my previous comment. It's worth glancing at.

[@dpixvid]

That was a good one!!!

[@charlespackwood2055]

"keeping yourself in the love of God"

[@waitingandwatching9328]

WOW THIS WAS THE 💣 will send this to a friend that I have been trying to explain that "We can't lose our salvation but we are free to give it up." As stupid as this free will act is ... Human beings are known for doing stupid things.

[@nevarezomar]

But remember, when you send this to your friend, you have to explain to him how the stupidity of men is more powerful than God's work in salvation. That way he will be sure to go to church every Sunday to worship men for being over God's wisdom.

[@mbritton837]

Nope...free will is not a superpower. God decreed not every act that man would do but that man would be free to act. This does not countervail the will of God but fulfills it.

[@nevarezomar]

@@mbritton837 I read you but I would like to understand you better. Can you tell me how human "free will" always fullfills God's will?

[@jayheinz4624]

Fortunately no, we cannot give up our salvation once we are truly saved. The good news of the Gospel is that we are then born again, save, New creations in Christ Jesus and sealed until the day of redemption. Can we walk away, can we be deceived and fall away,? Yes.. have you lost your Born again spirit because of this ?no! Can you get mad and give back your salvation to God??? You can try! But you are not going to unseal what the Holy Spirit has already sealed. God will be with you your whole life willing and working with you even if you think you have given the gift back!.. I've seen it many times through my life with fellow believers and experience it personally myself. Thank God our salvation doesn't depend on us or nobody would make it to heaven. 🎶

[@cord11ful]

@@jayheinz4624 Amen! I had a similar experience, where I walked away from my faith for 30 years, thinking I had grown too wise for Christianity! Very humbled and honoured to then have God call me back. He'd never left me! That is Love! He had kept me safe all those years, and welcomed me back with open arms. God's love is bigger than we can imagine.

[@koraegis]

Sealed by the Sprit. He seals his people. God's own Spirit comes to indwell or take up residence in the believer. The idea that something in the natural could break the seal is to dismantle or break the assurance. Paul had assurance. Faith gives us that assurance. Faith is a gift. Nothing can separate us from the love of God to his elect in Christ Jesus. clip: "But I answer, that the testimony of the Spirit is superior to reason. For as God alone can properly bear witness to his own words, so these words will not obtain full credit in the hearts of men, until they are sealed by the inward testimony of the Spirit. The same Spirit, therefore, who spoke by the mouth of the prophets, must penetrate our hearts, in order to convince us that they faithfully delivered the message with which they were divinely entrusted. This connection is most aptly expressed by Isaiah in these words, ‘My Spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed’s seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and for ever,’ (Isa. 59:21). Some worthy persons feel disconcerted, because, while the wicked murmur with impunity at the Word of God, they have not a clear proof at hand to silence them, forgetting that the Spirit is called an earnest and seal to confirm the faith of the godly, for this very reason, that, until he enlightens their minds, they are tossed to and fro in a sea of doubts. Let it therefore be held as fixed, that those who are inwardly taught by the Holy Spirit acquiesce implicitly in Scripture; that Scripture, carrying its own evidence along with it, deigns not to submit to proofs and arguments, but owes the full conviction with which we ought to receive it to the testimony of the Spirit. -For though in its own majesty it has enough to command reverence, nevertheless, it then begins truly to touch us when it is sealed in our hearts by the Holy Spirit.] Enlightened by him, we no longer believe, either on our own Judgment or that of others, that the Scriptures are from God; but, in a way superior to human judgment, feel perfectly assured-as much so as if we beheld the divine image visibly impressed on it-that it came to us, by the instrumentality of men, from the very mouth of God. We ask not for proofs or probabilities on which to rest our judgment, but we subject our intellect and judgment to it as too transcendent for us to estimate. This, however, we do, not in the manner in which some are wont to fasten on an unknown object, which, as soon as known, displeases, but because we have a thorough conviction that, in holding it, we hold unassailable truth; not like miserable men, whose minds are enslaved by superstition, but because we feel a divine energy living and breathing in it-an energy by which we are drawn and animated to obey it, willingly indeed, and knowingly, but more vividly and effectually than could be done by human will or knowledge. Hence, God most justly exclaims by the mouth of Isaiah, ‘Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen, that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he,’ (Isa. 43:10). Such, then, is a conviction which asks not for reasons; such, a knowledge which accords with the highest reason, namely knowledge in which the mind rests more firmly and securely than in any reasons; such in fine, the conviction which revelation from heaven alone can produce. I say nothing more than every believer experiences in himself, though my words fall far short of the reality. I do not dwell on this subject at present, because we will return to it again: only let us now understand that the only true faith is that which the Spirit of God seals on our hearts. Nay, the modest and teachable reader will find a sufficient reason in the promise contained in Isaiah, that all the children of the renovated Church ‘shall be taught of the Lord,’ (Isaiah 54:13). This singular privilege God bestows on his elect only, whom he separates from the rest of mankind. For what is the beginning of true doctrine but prompt alacrity to hear the Word of God? And God, by the mouth of Moses, thus demands to be heard: ‘It is not in heavens that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear and do it? But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth and in thy heart,’ (Deut. 30:12, 14). God having been pleased to reserve the treasure of intelligence for his children, no wonder that so much ignorance and stupidity is seen in the generality of mankind. In the generality, I include even those specially chosen, until they are ingrafted into the body of the Church. Isaiah, moreover, while reminding us that the prophetical doctrine would prove incredible not only to strangers, but also to the Jews, who were desirous to be thought of the household of God, subjoins the reason, when he asks, ‘To whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?’ (Isaiah 53:1). If at any time, then we are troubled at the small number of those who believe, let us, on the other hand, call to mind, that none comprehend the mysteries of God save those to whom it is given.” - John Calvin (1509-1564), Institutes of the Christian Religion, I.vii.4, 5

[@scottthong9274]

Senpais, a gentle please to turn on automatic captions. I want to find the timestamps when Dr Ben mentions certain items.

[@monicaorms7506]

I don’t know Greek or Hebrew but I read foreknew very simply rather than as the stumbling block it seems to be for so many...and I am probably misinterpreting it, however, my my initial thought is that God foreknew each and every one of us...he created us in his very image. Why can’t we take that at face value and go from there?

[@joel_i_was]

Well said!✨

[@sishrac]

It depends on who is taking the term 'foreknew' at face value. The generation that is drenched in Humanism will interpret the subject that is foreknown as themselves the individuals. But those who are weaned off individualism and are decreasing self will be able to see Christ as the foreknown and by extension the corporate body of Christ as the pre-designated congregation of the elect.

[@richhuzy6592]

I have a question. Would a Calvinists doctrine be a false gospel because they are teaching a different God?

[@richhuzy6592]

@@ST52655 you are correct. The good news of Jesus death, burial and resurrection, isn't the same as the gospel.

[@GalenCurrah]

So, then, chosen before the END, not chosen before the BEGINNING.

[@hawkabomb]

It's this simple: a master hired a servant down on his luck and put him to work. The master trains the servant in being more effective in character and skill. Throughout this entire time, the servant still needs to put in the work the master asks. Did the servant give himself this work and save himself from a bad fate? No, the master did--he hired the servant, but still expects said servant perform his duties. Merit exists underneath the God's grace. It doesn't initiate salvation. But salvation leads to good merit because that is right result of the Spirit's training in us.

[@mostreal907]

How do people write over 60 books!

[@PoesieUndGlaube]

If it's their job / calling to read, think and write they can do it.

[@jonanthony6179]

sitting Down

[@aleczamora6993]

I wonder what he thinks of the provisionist perspective.

[@chaddonal4331]

He would oppose Provisionists over depravity/inability, disagree with them on eternal security and infant baptism, and line up well on nearly everything else.

[@danoctavian8184]

44:07 that is a very poor reassurance, i would be very scared for my salvation if i knew that i am saved “as long as...[insert anything]” I know myself too well to trust in me not to comit apostasy. In other words: If i could lose my salvation, I would. Now i do love the Lord, but i do not trust myself that i will do so in the future, unless i am conforted by the doctrine of perseverance of saints and know that God won’t abandon me and i will continue to love Him because He works it in me and is not up to me to continue loving and trusting in Him, because He Himself will enable me to continue to do those things.

[@danoctavian8184]

43:44 if you have ever been saved and know God why would you ever want to be separate from Him? i am worried for the salvation of those who think it is possible to want to abandone God if you know Him.

[@danoctavian8184]

47:15 they are directed to christians because Paul doesn’t know who is or who is not elect. We don’t know who is and who is not. Those are for us to see if we are in the faith or not. Is for assuring you of your election.

[@davek6461]

Sounds like a story right out of Genesis, doesnt it.

[@mariebo7491]

Well, you do have to start with the doctrines of Total Depravity and Original Sin as defined by Augustine. It’s because of Augustine’s problematic influence you have to add Prevenient Grace at all. None of those 3 are in the Bible.

[@charlespackwood2055]

The lukewarm are vomited out of His mouth. If vomited out can you still be In Him. To the Ephesians in Revelation it was said they had fallen from there high place. The only high place they were at in the first letter to the Ephesians was "seated with Him in heavenly places".

[@dennishagans6339]

1Co 13:8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. 1Co 13:9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. 1Co 13:10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. 1Co 13:11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. 1Co 13:12 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. For me that which is perfect is come was the completed gathered and canonized full Bible of both old and new testaments bound together in one book. Once we had the full word of God, we no longer had the need for prophets to tell us what God expects of us, we have all we need for all matters of faith and doctrine in the completed Word of God, Now we can still use prophesying for this reason 1Co 14:24 But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all: 1Co 14:25 And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth. I can see that taking place and not relegated to the first-century church only. Look what has come in these last days where some have claimed the office of prophet. joseph smith was a false prophet ellen g white was a false prophetess Those are two of the more notable false prophets, but there are others also claiming to be prophets. Either the completed Word of God is sufficient for all matters of faith and doctrine or it needs to be added too with new revelations from these pseudo-prophets of the last days when deception is supposed to be so prevalent that if it were possible even the Very Elect would be deceived.

[@sishrac]

The apostle Paul clearly reveals that which is the perfect to come, in chapter 13 of 1 Corinthians. If the perfect to come is the canonised Bible then the divisions and fighting among Christians that has ensued by claiming knowledge of that canonised word of God is the opposite to what Paul in the Spirit foresaw. He writes that knowledge shall fade away! But it is the love of God when perfected among the saints that is explained here as the perfect to come. When such a love among one another in the church is experienced, there will be no more need for things like prophesy, tongues and knowledge, all of which are for the edification and comfort of the suffering saints. Where there is the love of God among us, suffering is alleviated. Christ prayed for unity among His followers. The love for Truth must be there above all in order for us to come closer in faith and hope towards unity of mind and heart. Then the practice of loving one another is possible for the world to see and be transformed for the glory of God. Indeed faith, hope and love abide, but the greatest of these is love.

[@dennishagans6339]

@@sishrac You make a very good point and case, for love being that which is perfect. 1Co 12:31 But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way. Paul introduces us to what we call the "love" chapter in 1 Cor chapter 13. So this would also be in keeping with the context of what was Paul's topic, I had considered the completed word of God to be perfect having looked up how the word perfect is used elsewhere in the word of God. Psa_19:7 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. 2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. Jas 1:25 But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed. In many instances God was saying to someone to be perfect or walk perfect, or to have a perfect heart. Now I am calling into question my thinking on this, as I am willing to change if I need to, and you have certainly given me a a perspective that has much merit, all I can do is to pray about this and ask the Lord for guidance. Thank you for your input.

[@sishrac]

@@dennishagans6339 It is truly exhorting to witness the love of Truth in saints who are poor in Spirit. I know how much it pleases God to reveal His Son to the ones willing to be corrected and be aligned with His Word. May the love of God abound in the Body of Christ, where you serve.

[@isaacseabra5669]

The man was asked to define the doctrine of Prevenient Grace, biblically. He absolutely dodged the question and in fact did not answer what was asked of him.

[@seanpersinger1473]

This is what pisses me off about the church, it’s always gotta be one way or the other… There is a meeting in the middle. I’d like to know where that’s at.

[@flippintobyland7257]

I think this is the first time I have heard a methodist of today use the term “ born again “ .

[@christopherskipp1525]

Who is Ben Witherington and what is that tourist background behind him?

[@jerardosc9534]

the first 5 minutes in the video answers that question

[@christopherskipp1525]

@@jerardosc9534 I don't know about the video, but Wikipedia indicated he is an Arminian academic.

[@jerardosc9534]

@@christopherskipp1525 Yes he is an evangelical wesleyan scholar, but why not watch the video and hear it from the guy himself?

[@Liminalplace1]

"You've not eternally secure until you are securely in eternity." So you can be "In Christ" and not saved, which is different from mosts understanding. I assume you get to be in Christ via baptism Galatians 3:27 The implications are wide

[@GTMGunTotinMinnesotan]

Actually, I think what he was trying to explain is that you can be 'in Christ' (saved) and then at a later point reject Christ knowingly (no longer placing trust in Jesus) (re-crucifying Jesus scripture mentioned) (apostate). The opportunity for apostasy according to the scripture ends in this life. The after-life it appears does not have that same chance.

[@paulwilfridhunt]

The works that we do, if you can call them works, to quit sinning, are not the works Paul is talking about when he says lest any man should boast. The works he is talking about are the good works done by the Jewish convert prior to conversion. These would have included fasting, praying, keeping the commandments and so on. But AS the Gentile converts did none of these works prior to their conversion it presumably could have messed with their confidence when they compared themselves to the Jewish believers. And conversely some of the Jews might have been inclined to be swell headed for their great knowledge of God prior to being saved, compared to Gentles.

[@Calvinist-Premil]

Dr. Ben has strengthen my Calvinism even more. Never have I heard a worse defense against Calvinism. His counter arguments were poorly detailed by him because he could not tackle them properly.

[@angelbonilla2255]

Example?

[@chaddonal4331]

Perhaps you have not heard very many defenses? And perhaps you have blockages to not truly consider what he is saying?

[@marcelniles342]

Ben sounded a lot like Roman Catholic theology in some of his presentations...

[@koraegis]

> key: Faith, true faith >>> SEALED. "only let us now understand that the only true faith is that which the Spirit of God seals on our hearts. Nay, the modest and teachable reader will find a sufficient reason in the promise contained in Isaiah, that all the children of the renovated Church ‘shall be taught of the Lord,’ (Isaiah 54:13). This singular privilege God bestows on his elect only, whom he separates from the rest of mankind. For what is the beginning of true doctrine but prompt alacrity to hear the Word of God? - Calvin

[@timv1021]

Are the remnant radio guys Calvinist? It seems so, because they seem very lost in this interview.

[@elgallopolify]

Roundtree, the guy that asked about Ephesians 1 is definitely a Calvinist, i dont think the other guy is.

[@jacobpodolsky2649]

So if I understand this correctly, humans are totally depraved in sin. There isn’t anything good (moral perfection) in us. We have a sinful nature. Full of sin. God the Son pays for every single persons’ sins on the cross. And makes it merely possible for people to be saved by grace, but my faith, must be the factor to receive that grace. So my questions are, is my faith outside of Gods sovereign power ? Doesn’t he have the last say over my life since he created me ? So when you get to the nuts and bolts of Arminian theology, I get to choose God out of my own free ontological will, where God has zero influence and power over that will he created in me. That to me doesn’t sound like an all powerful and good God. Does God have to save every single person and if he doesn’t then why does he have to pay for every single persons sins if that person will end up in the lake of fire based off being a sinner. I think it’s an issue of anthropology and how we would feel God should be. But in reality God doesn’t have to save anyone, I think we have to look at it as, why does God even save one person ? That’s amazing! God has a multitude of his people too many to count, I trust in his grace, only. And if God doesn’t know who will be saved because we can potentially lose it then Gods knowledge is open. He can’t possibly know for sure who are his then.

[@TKK0812]

"God sovereignly decreed that man should be free to exercise moral choice, and man from the beginning has fulfilled that decree by making his choice between good and evil. When he chooses to do evil, he does not thereby countervail the sovereign will of God but fulfills it, inasmuch as the eternal decree decided not which choice the man should make but that he should be free to make it. If in His absolute freedom God has willed to give man limited freedom, who is there to stay His hand or say, 'What doest thou?' Man’s will is free because God is sovereign. A God less than sovereign could not bestow moral freedom upon His creatures. He would be afraid to do so" A.W. Tozer

[@jacobpodolsky2649]

Keegan Kidder I appreciate that. I believe we have free will but that free will doesn’t have the same power as God. That’s why God has to be the first mover because scriptures says we are dead in our sin and we don’t seek God, we wouldn’t if it was based off our faith.

[@TKK0812]

@@jacobpodolsky2649 *I believe we have free will but that free will doesn’t have the same power as God* I wouldn't classify free will as a power at all, it's simply a God given ability to decide between available options *That’s why God has to be the first mover because scriptures says we are dead in our sin* I agree that yes, God had to be the first mover in that He had to send His message to us or there would be nothing to respond to (Romans 10) but let's be careful what we mean when we say "dead in our sin". Dead is an idiom that simply means separation from God, like when you tell someone "you're dead to me". Dead here is a position, not a ontology. Paul also says in Romans 6:11 "So you also must consider yourselves *dead* to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus." Again, this usage is positional because obviously, even in being dead to sin, we still experience sin, temptation, and the like. In the same way, dead in our sins doesn't mean we have a moral inability to do good things (though obviously even doing "good things" will never merit righteousness) but rather dead in sins means separated from God. *we don’t seek God* Again, I would agree that we wouldn't seek God in that we wouldn't even know about Him if He hadn't revealed Himself to us, but if this is a reference to Romans 3 being a proof text for no one seeking God, than I have to disagree that no, this is not even in Paul's mind and purpose when he quotes Psalm 14 and other OT passages here.

[@jacobpodolsky2649]

Keegan Kidder an ability is use of power. Unless God gives us the ability to seek him, we wouldn’t. Abraham wasn’t seeking Yahweh and we are definitely not any better than Abraham the father of our faith was, we just have a lot more information. Knowledge is power right ? It’s an ability and in my sin I don’t have the ability to truly honor and love God.

[@TKK0812]

@@jacobpodolsky2649 If by seek you mean God must make Himself known first, then I agree. If by seek you mean God must change our inborn nature in order to want to seek Him, I disagree wholly.

[@ryandawson2877]

Is he a free Methodist?

[@rtgray7]

Folks, rejecting Calvinism DOES NOT require Arminianism. Both are systematics brought forth by men. The Bible teaches neither.

[@nevarezomar]

The Bible teaches neither as you said. However, these systems brought by men attempt to teach what the bible says. Once we try to do the same, we will end bringing a system as well because we are also believers trying to deal with something deep. Is not a matter of embracing some system, but it is neither a matter of rejecting it and throw them away as if we can do it better than those who spent hours working on the Scriptures. It is a matter to test what the text says and bring about a reasonable understanding.

[@impala8614]

These two comments are refreshing. The belief that if you are not one,then you are the other is a false dichotomy that’s went on far too long and is just ridiculously wrong.

[@jonanthony6179]

where in the bible does it not agree with Calvinism? Give me a verse

[@impala8614]

@@jonanthony6179 literally everywhere,but here’s a good one: ““O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, but you were not willing! See! Your house is left to you desolate; and assuredly, I say to you, you shall not see Me until the time comes when you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!’ ”” ‭‭Luke‬ ‭13‬:‭34‬-‭35‬ ‭ Under Calvinism,Jesus’s weeping was just pretense,he didn’t mean it. And he did really try to gather them together because it was his Devine deterministic plan to harden them before they were born. With all due respect ,that’s absolute nonsense. So many places we are given a choice, one I would argue that God himself gave us to make because he made us in his image,as free moral creatures,for instance: “I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live;” ‭‭Deuteronomy‬ ‭30‬:‭19‬ ‭

[@bradbrown2199]

Calvinist lean in on Gnostic thought of the Manichaeans. FOREKNEW like he knew Abraham and Moses.

[@randaldavid7685]

To be honest, these gleaming towers of doctrines which WE HAVE BUILT look and sound so much like the the Pharisees who over the centuries thought that they could make God's law better by adding onto the law traditions of men. I agree with Ben, but instead of the entire church duking it out over complex doctrines which clearly require a New York Lawyer to decipher and understand, we should be about the Fathers business, that being seeking the lost and showing forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light.

[@Over-for-now]

NONE seek after God. Just bow to scripture instead of these GREAT men of opinions

[@mattmsharp44]

Who can truly know God’s grace and at some point willfully reject Him? Would God not for-know that too…making that person never saved in the first place? I smell fallacies. Can a person though God for-knows change their mind? Does God not know the future? …If He does then how is the future not predetermined? All these commands of God can only be preformed by the Holy Spirit working through us…for without Him we can do nothing. It always seems like a red herring to pull us off the issue of deeper discussion on God’s for-knowledge when I hear people go back to what God has commanded. We cannot do what He has commanded unless He grants us the ability to do as He has commanded…if not we are beginning to veer dangerously towards pelagiansm. He gives us prevalent grace, but we still must live our lives under the cloud that we might wake up and make the wrong choice? How is that good news? It seems like Arminianism is more a violation of the will than the doctrine of election. So God for-knows that people will choose Hell, yet He creates them anyway? How is that a more moral view of God than election? Because that is really the root of the debate. I love all of my brothers and sisters regardless, but I cannot wrap my mind around how Arminians dismiss the inevitable fact that if you continue to seek the “why things are as they are” you will always find your way back to Heaven. Maybe not if we are debating, but once a tragedy happens in our life and we get honest with ourselves, we will ask “Why God did you let that happen?” Nothing can happen unless God allows it…nothing. He is God. If God destroyed evil, you and I wouldn’t have a chance. No one would choose evil if the whole world wasn’t blinded by the lies of Satan and we could see God rightly. The Word says every knee will bow, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. They will still be blinded in Hell because of their hardened and impenitent heart. Who can create in us a clean heart? Is it us, how did we cross the line from enemies of God to someone humble enough to ask. Prevalent Grace? I don’t think so, no one desires new wine at first, we need a grace that is irresistible or we would return to the vomit. We live in a fallen world because of the sin of Adam. God sent His Son into the world to make a way for those who believe in Him. You can call these debates doctrines of men, but it is absurd to believe God can create a square circle, and that there is no law of non-contradiction that A can be B at the same time in the same sense…if so there is no such thing as objective truth. These are things we all presuppose. You just need Jesus? Well who is this Jesus? …you have just started telling me your theology. Fact is that people don’t say absurd things like that unless that is what doctrines of men have taught them. 2 Timothy 3 KJV 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. God has presented you and I with the Gospel, if we reject it we will go to a devil’s hell. God hardened Pharaohs heart, we need a new heart. If we believe on His name that He is able to deliver us. Whosoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. We will be saved if we genuinely ask God to save us. You may not feel anything at all, God is true to His Word. While we were His enemies He died for you and I. God knows the truth and you and I only see Him through a glass darkly…we won’t know the truth till we get to Heaven. We need to go and preach the Gospel to the lost, and people will be saved, beloved.

[@chaddonal4331]

In reply to "It seems like Arminianism is more a violation of the will than the doctrine of election. So God for-knows that people will choose Hell, yet He creates them anyway? How is that a more moral view of God than election? Because that is really the root of the debate." I think that you raise a good question. In the Calvinist conception, God, in His Sovereignty, knowingly passes over (seemingly) most (i.e. those whom He has not personally elected), sending them by His intent and good pleasure to everlasting destruction/punishment for His glory, (with His 2 wills in conflict). In the Arminian conception, God, in His Foreknowledge, knowingly creates people who will reject the Gospel and inevitably assign themselves to everlasting destruction/punishment. So, God is not OFF the hook; rather He remains ON the hook for the damned, just in a different location and under a different process. Interesting point. You suggest that Arminianism is a greater violation of the will than the doctrine of election. Here is how I would respond to your hypothesis: 1. Regarding the violation of "man's will", I don't agree. Within Calvinism, man has no capacity to change his will or to respond to God's overtures through the gospel. However, with Arminianism those who reject God still had opportunity. Their will was originally just as unresponsive as under Calvinism (original total inability); but enlivened to some degree via prevenient grace, so that their rejection of God and the gospel was voluntary and participative. 2. So, what follows is that "their condemnation is just" (as Paul writes in a different context). The question raised about God's character concerns whether or not He is "just" to unilaterally create people for everlasting destruction/punishment, who never truly had a chance or an option to repent and respond. So, the Arminian view protects God's character of Justness (Justice). 3. While you mentioned "will", speaking of unsaved humanity's will; I hinted at the problem raised within the Calvinist understanding of the 2 wills of God -- which inevitably come into conflict. Somehow, under Calvinism, God is seen to have a Prescriptive Will (that which he desires for Himself and commands of people) and his ACTUAL will (by various names) whereby God actualizes His sovereign plan. So, He can will (in the first sense) that ALL come to faith, and yet rule determinatively that only the elect whom He actively regenerates actually will come to faith. So, God's prescriptive will is not only in conflict with His actual will, it is overrun. 4. This creates a MAJOR problem of integrity -- with the unassailable result that this puts God's commands to people against what He actually has determined to do. For specific example: Every command for people to repent, to clean themselves, to respond to God's initiative, to find Rest in Him, etc. is made IMPOSSIBLE for the non-elect, according to Calvinism. So, these grand overtures are completely emptied of any true meaning toward the non-Elect. Of course, this extends to the question of who God truly loves. According to consistent Calvinism, God only loves the Elect, His own, the ones Christ died for. Meanwhile, His posture toward the non-elect is wrathful judgment. So, God calls us, His children, to love our enemies -- a command which is UNLIKE how God is presented in Calvinism as one who only hates and despises HIs enemies whom He has created as vessels of wrath (according to the Calvinist interpretation of Romans 9) and done so for His own glory. Arminianism has re-examined the biblical data and has sought to protect on these counts: 1. the violation of man's will 2. The Just character of God 3. The unified Will of God (He wills that which He actually pursues) 4. The integrity of the Gospel call to all, including His universal Love and free offer of grace

[@optres]

Can a sealed letter break itself? No. Can someone break a sealed letter yes. But, Jesus said and no one can take them from my hand. They went out from us because they were not of us. I have trouble believing that someone can be bonafide save, and then walk away. I guess God has to keep a giant eraser handy for the mistakes.

[@graftme3168]

He sounds like he is saying that works is necessary to KEEP salvation, even though he denies that is true. You can't give up your salvation. "You were BOUGHT with a price and you are not your own." Once saved, God OWNS you!

[@chaddonal4331]

Dr. Witherington, do you not connect the Hebrew "hesed" to the Greek "charis" for grace? Have you missed how John 1 describes Jesus as coming full of "grace and truth", i.e. the "hesed" of God? You mention how "grace" comes up one time in the gospel of John (presumably you are referencing John 1:14). But how are you missing working backwards? This is CLEARLY a reference to God's most common OT self-description, originally presented to Moses in Ex. 34 of God's covenant mercy, His loyal love, His gracious compassion -- repeated so many times in so many forms throughout the OT. God's "hesed" previews His "charis", so that John can write that we (NT believers in Jesus) have received "grace upon grace" (John 1:16) -- grace from God through Moses, and now MORE grace from God through Jesus. The way Jesus was to be recognized as "God" was that he was JUST LIKE YHWH -- the One full of Grace (and Truth). Jesus came revealing the same nature and characteristics.

[@charlespackwood2055]

The NIV Bible appears to have a built in bias towards this widely held doctrine of "sin nature". Where scriptures use the Greek word anomia which means sin or sinfulness, the NIV often translates it "sin nature", without the Greek word for "nature" even being found in the original text. There are really no texts in the Bible that explicitly define or use the two Greek words "sin nature" together: even the concept of a "sin nature" as we have understood it doctrinally is not found explained in totality. The scriptural basis for such a nature is from a few passages which could, in context, mean something else. For example, Ephesians 2:3 says "we were by nature children of wrath." If this is viewed as proof of a sin nature then what it suggests is that people will experience the wrath of God simply because they possess a nature that they had no choice in having. That this is unjust is self-evident. This passages goes on to say: "when we were dead in our transgressions". That it is just to experience wrath for your own transgressions is also self-evident. If verse 3 means that judgment is a result of an inherent nature within a person and if verse 5 means that people are found to be "dead" because of their own transgressions: to maintain that these two concepts are in harmony and synonymous is ludicrous. It seems that what Ephesians 2:3 is saying that it is normal state of being for unregenerate people to tend towards moral depravity; this does not mean that people have a sin nature within them. This would be a blatant assumption.

[@romans828.]

I'm getting a headache

[@bobbycecere1037]

Unlike the doctor here, I don't believe apostasy is unlikely at all, in fact I would say it's the norm.......

[@marcelniles342]

Its sound like Roman Catholic theology as I heard him at certain time in the interview...after hearing over an hour of his presentation I'm driven deeper into Calvinism than I was...very man centered...!

[@koraegis]

Christ died not merely to make possible the salvation of all mankind, BUT to make certain the salvation of all the Father had given Him! - AW PINK

[@chaddonal4331]

The reference to “all the Father had given him” from John 6 has to do primarily with the temporal transition from the Old Covenant to the New. The background question: What happens to those faithful believing Jews who are under the administration of the mosaic Covenant at the time of Christ? Jesus’ answer to this conundrum: All those in the Father’s fold will be successfully transferred to Jesus’s fold. He will lose none! What a great comfort to those during the time of epochal transition! By John 12, Jesus announces that his previously Jewish ministry will be going to the gentiles and that when He is raised up (on the cross) He will draw all people to Himself. So, Jesus had 2 missions: To successfully transfer all of God’s children to be included “in Christ”. And to expand the elect group eligible for salvation from Israel to the whole world. And to provide salvation for this new complete group (all). Just as with the smaller previously elect group of Israel, those who are fully saved will be those who respond to God’s grace through faith and trust in God to the end. God provided fully for Israel, but only the remnant believed and was saved. God provided fully for the world through Christ, but only those who believe and receive will be saved.

[@cecilspurlockjr.9421]

If one is truly born again in CHRIST they are predestined to the adoption which is the redemption of the body unto glorification . One who is truly born again will not walk away . " let's talk about seals he says " and then talks about wine seals while scripture is talking about the seal of THE HOLY SPIRIT . One isn't elect until they're in THE ELECT CHOSEN SERVANT CHRIST JESUS because they have heard and believed the word of truth Ephesians 1 : 13 whereby we are sealed by THE SPIRIT as earnest for our inheritance . I love this brother but he's changing alot of Scripture around to fit .

[@youdontsay2181]

This is typical Armenian apologetics, Armenians it seems ,ALWAYS, want the scripture to fit they're theology, EVERYTIME, there's another apologetic I find about Armenians and Calvinism , they NEVER, represent scripture in context and they're unbelievably prideful, and arrogant, it's always Armenians bashing Calvinist, you never find Calvinist bashing Armenians 🤮👎

[@cecilspurlockjr.9421]

@@youdontsay2181 lol 😆 😂 🤣 That's a good one , as we see calvinists bashing everybody on a regular basis . My main rebuke concerning calvinism is their corrupt portrayal of our SAVIOR though because it's actually blasphemous when held in contrast to scripture , especially when applied to passages where CHRIST is speaking.

[@youdontsay2181]

@@cecilspurlockjr.9421 feel free to send me some titles on you tube to support your statement. My main contention w Armenians, they think they have to protect God , and present him so he's acceptable to the world's and man's idea of what a "real" "loving" God would and should look like , Armenians so far as I've encountered, are immature spirituality, arrogant and prideful like yourself

[@cecilspurlockjr.9421]

@@youdontsay2181 why do you call me prideful simply because I disagreed with you ? That just shows your spiritual immaturity and your just plain immaturity as a human being . I'm not arminian nor Calvinist because they'd both in error , especially Calvinism because it portrays GOD as a lying hypocrite . Of course I defend my SAVIOR CHRIST JESIS when others blasphemer HIS HOLY NAME as Calvinist do but not to my own ideas . I defend what Scripture plainly tells us explicitly about GOD which is completely different than what Calvinism does . Do you even realize that with the systematic paradigm just as many people go to hell even if satan didn't exist because Calvinism claims GOD creates everyone that goes to hell with no other purpose than to hate HIM and go to hell . This is blasphemy my friend whether you like it or not . Hebrews 2 : 9 tells us that CHRIST tasted death for every man . 1 John 2 : 2 tells us that CHRIST is the propitiation for our sins and not only ours but for the sins of the whole world . Titus 2 : 11 tells us that the grace that brings salvation has appeared to all men . Mark 16 : 15 tells us that CHRIST has offered salvation to EVERY CREATURE in the whole world through the preaching of the gospel . To claim that CHRIST has offered something that HE has no intention of giving is blasphemy against the CHARACHTER OF CHRIST as it portrays HIM to be a deceitful hypocrite but you claim people shouldn't defend CHRIST against these blasphemous claims and that also shoes where you are spiritually as well . Don't be a fool , reject these blasphemous unscripural teachings of Calvinism because we will all stand before JESUS THE JUDGE to give an account . I tell you these things out of love not disdain and I urge you to rethink these teachings of Calvinism you've embraced and are more than happy to call me prideful over because I disagree with claims that blaspheme CHRIST . GOD bless you

[@youdontsay2181]

@@cecilspurlockjr.9421 again you're making my point , you're neither, but you attack Calvinism and defend Armenian positions, you cherry pick scripture and then build a doctrine around it , a typical Armenian apologetic tactic, try to do that against the backdrop of the WHOLE counsel of God, you'll discover your handy blasphemy finger pointing back at you, and don't play that sappy " god bless you" card , Paul confronted Peter to his face, Jude: "contend earnestly for the faith that was once delivered to the saints" I wonder why we don't have the accounts of the men Jesus approached with the"invitation" to follow Me to become an apostle but decided to turn him down ? We'll never know how long it took Him to find twelve willing to say yes until he got the twelve , I wonder why it was a command NOT a suggestion or an invitation for them to get back with him on it after they exercised they're free will and the God of the Universe took a back seat to mankind ,wondering 🤫how long will this take? Get off your little cherry picking track and familiarize yourself with the God of the Universe who if you did have the proper perspective you would approach Him and His Christ and His word with reverential awe and fear, not this popular fast food , easy believism that Armenians pedal

[@mitromney]

Calvinism truly is the theology of the rich, comfortable, western world. Who does evil? Is it me? No, it's God. Who's responsible? Is it me? No, it's God. What do I have to do to be saved? Nothing, God will either keep me because I'm elect, or I'm just not and there's nothing I can do, no amount of repentance or faith can save me, so, enjoy your sins before you go to hell! It surely is conveniant and lazy to believe such an awful men-made misinterpretation of Scripture rather than actually taking responsibility for your actions.

[@micahfurtick]

That is a very, very poor misunderstanding of Calvinism, my friend. Election does not mean license. The beauty in Calvinism is that nothing I have done has earned me a place in Heaven, rather God chose me to be among the elect. God does not do moral evil. That is evident in Scripture. Calvinism also does not at all say that men do not do evil and God does. That is completely contradictory to the doctrine of Total Depravity/Radical Fallenness. I highly recommend you either read Calvin's Institutes or watch R.C. Sproul's lectures on Reformed Theology. He gives an incredible explanation based in Scripture on what TULIP is.

[@jonanthony6179]

your confused

[@koraegis]

All Christians believe in Predestination. Christ died for the elect.

[@mariebo7491]

Sure. We’d just disagree on what it is that God actually predestined.

[@koraegis]

Makes me wonder if there is indeed any Arminian (can they be taught of the LORD?) to hold to such a position as they do... Hmm.. I will have to wait for such a revelation but I am indeed concerned for people who teach such error.

[@lukusmaximus]

I cannot stand Calvinist rhetoric. They are so arrogant in their misrepresentations of other soteriological systems, they swamp their audience with strawmans.

[@nevarezomar]

Then your problem is not with calvinism, but with calvinists. You have to decide why you don't agree with something, but it should be never based on a subjective standpoint on people who represent that position because there are arrogant people in both sides.

[@lukusmaximus]

@@nevarezomar I was making a statement irrespective of my opinion of Calvinism. The statement has nothing to do with my decision on whether Calvinism is true or not, or whether I have a problem with Calvinism or not. You have read a whole lot into a statement which was just a mere observation of many Calvinist preachers........ So, to give you some clarity, I have a problem with Calvinism due to it's fallacious understanding of many texts. And i have a problem with Calvinists who strawman other soteriological views to deceive their audience..... This is obviously a must for them as their system doesn't hold water..... And i was a Calvinist for many years.

[@nevarezomar]

@@lukusmaximus I think you start saying that my reply was out of what you intended to say, but you end saying what I in fact replied. So this is how I sum your response: I am not talking about any problems with Calvinism but I do have problems with Calvinism. In that case I can do another statement irrespective of my opinion of Arminianism: "I cannot stand Arminianist rhetoric. They say calvinists have fallacious understandings of many texts but they enjoy taking verses out of context like Romans 9 changing the natural argumentation of salvation that comes from the beginning of the epistle to a complete different and secondary topic as Israel as a preacher to the nations. Then they seal the argument saying "I was a calvinist" just to reinforce their stand by implying that they were deceived once.

[@lukusmaximus]

@@nevarezomar I ended up saying what you replied because of your reply. Just so you had clarity around this area as well. As for your statement, you are entitled to express your opinions, so good for you, although your statement about Romans 9 is just begging the question, the interpretation of Romans 9 is a topic up for contention, we charge you with taking that passage out of it's historical context, and you charge us with a similar thought. If you wanted to make a statement that reflected mine but from a Calvinist perspective, you would have to bring up a strawman argument or a misrepresentation of Calvinism that you are painted with.

[@lukusmaximus]

@@nevarezomar But you're entitled to any statement you like really. Its just whether your statement has any substance to it or not.

[@cadenbaughn]

Denying imputed righteousness is an L

[@derrickschiano9476]

He said, Election and Salvation are separate. He is in error. I pray to God, his blindness will be removed. Ephesians 1:4 ESV - even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love

[@bobbycecere1037]

What makes you think that election before the foundation of the world is referring to us individually? Why couldn't it be identifying the body of believers as a group?? That could both satisfy the text as well as leave open the possibility of repentance or falling away.

[@chaddonal4331]

Consider this: The nation of Israel was the Elect of God. Concerning individuals -- particularly in the Northern Kingdom throughout the eras: were these "elect" ones eternally saved? i.e. Do you expect to see them around the throne of God in eternity? It is clear that "elect" is a larger set among which the "remnant" of the "saved" are a subset. In both testaments.

[@aitornavarro6597]

Chose us in Him, that's the key to that passage, "in Him", refers to Christ being the elect one before the foundation of the world.

[@koraegis]

Dead men can't respond. :) This professor is very angry to what the scriptures say in my estimate.... May his eyes be opened to the truth of Predestination and election. I would encourage his to read AW Pink The Doctrine of Election.

[@adamduarte895]

This is the same old tired objection that Reformed and Calvinist Christians just assume without any real back up. Jesus and Paul are pretty clear that we are enabled by grace to respond affirmatively or negatively. Also, spiritual death just means separated from the life giver, ie God, not that our faculties are completely turned off and that we are comatose. We are also described as sick. They are images of our spiritual standing before God, not that our mind has been completely turned off.

[@Superman111181]

I don't want to be Calvinistic but this guy is not really doing a good job defending Arminian theology

[@jonanthony6179]

if u believe scripture you are already a calvinist

[@mariebo7491]

Good thing Calvinism and Arminianism aren’t the only options. Thank God for provisionism! Makes way more sense 😁

[@Over-for-now]

GOD will NOT share HIS GLORY with you or any other name under heaven

[@danoctavian8184]

Me before watching this: “Well, arminians are not so bad, i used to be one and i think they are good christians and i don’t need to make them calvinist, we can just agree to disagree and have fellowship” Me after watching this and what this guy is saying: “Oh dear God, this thing is worst then i thought, no wander the Synod of Dort labeled it heresy”

[@aitornavarro6597]

He's more wesleyan than arminian or classical arminianism really.

[@DarrellWolfe]

I think Arminians, Wesleyans, and others who branches from them like Dr Ben Witherington III are on the right track, just not far enough down the track. I reject ALL five points of Calvinism, especially total depravity. Calvin read hyperbolic language in the NT and over literalized it. While I love his responses for what they are, it is a sign of still being in the Matrix that he says you have to go to the NT to study Grace. Any and every statement made by a NT author was rooted in a Hebrew Bible, Hebrew Mind, Hebrew Theology, Second Temple Judaism, and pre-rabbinic debates. There are no concepts, even "grace" that are not deeply rooted in the Tanakh. Until your first study those themes for all they offer, then you're still imposing foreign, later, medieval ideas onto the text, forcing the text into a debate it never intended to engage with. Watching Calvinists and Arminians debate Paul, is like watching two people staring at a baseball, arguing about whether it is an orange or apple. Without deep roots in Hebrew thought, Second Temple Judaism, Ancient Near East comparative studies, and similar training... NT debates often devolve into this apple - orange - baseball paradigm.

[@jonanthony6179]

rejecting Calvinism is like rejecting Scripture

[@jonanthony6179]

Spurgeon: Calvinism is Biblical Christianity

[@timclark2925]

Unregenerated souls are always going to hate predestination, elect, chosen, called......those words don't make any sense whatsoever in the Arminian free will view.....If the Arminian view were true then when Jesus asked Peter, "Do you love Me?" Jesus would have responded, "Then get out there and save as many goats as possible!" But what did Jesus say? "Feed My Sheep!" Thats what God is depending on us to do. Feed the Sheep. God is not depending on us to build His Church. Jesus said, "I will build My Church!" God makes sure that ALL the Elect sheep get saved. Not one more and not one less. All of them. Remember when Peter was the one who identified who Jesus was? "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God!" And Jesus responded and told us exactly how God builds His Church. "Blessed are you Peter; because flesh and blood did not reveal that to you, but it was revealed to you by my Father , who is in heaven. And Peter you are a rock, and upon this rock I will build My Church! And the gates of hell will not prevail against her." Only God reveals who Jesus is; and He only does it to the Elect.

[@Berean_with_a_BTh]

Troll

[@timclark2925]

@@Berean_with_a_BTh run along little baby...I'll easily destroy your heretical false free will theology......the Bible does not teach free will....sorry! Berean...what a joke! You people hate the Bible....you cannot be helped.

[@Berean_with_a_BTh]

​​​@@timclark2925 Do feel free to try... EDIT: Mr Clark previously claimed, without even bothering to establish what my beliefs are: _I'll easily destroy your false free-will theology....the bible does not teach free will._ Hence the above response. Predictably, Mr Clark never did try.

[@petermukomba2338]

Humanism presupposes man's goodness; and such is the bedrock of arminianism.But the word of God knows nothing of such inherent goodness in man.

[@LucasDZurita]

Did you watch it ? He literally agrees with you on the goodness of man…

[@nathanweisser]

Why are Arminians so intent on labeling Calvinists as evil, if by just tone alone?

[@larrywaddell7332]

Umm, who labeled a Calvinist as evil? My main issue with Calvinism is how it damages the reputation and character of God, making him the author of evil and sin. God creates people whom he has already decided to pass over, leaving them with no hope since they are doomed to hell from eternity past.

[@christinalafferty6073]

I certainly don't think Calvinists are evil by any means, but to be quite honest, the Calvinists I have known have unfortunately been either arrogant in their opinions or refused to consider opposing positions, or both, and as such were impossible to actually converse with about the issue. I get that people of any persuasion can be like this, but it's something I've run into more with Calvinists than non-Calvinists. I actually had a HS English teacher who said all who were in her class were Calvinists, prior to laying out the points of Calvinism, and when students raised objections to certain points, she smirked and said "But that would make salvation dependent upon us." It was extraordinarily confusing to me at the time. Ultimately most issues between Arninianists and Calvinists come down to a lack of conversation and understanding.

[@larrywaddell7332]

Ever watch Dave White when he uses red herring, strawman and ad hominem arguments against those who disagree with his Soteriology? He doesn't exactly help the Calvinist cause by being condescending and send the message to his acolytes that this is an appropriate way to deal with those who have an opposing theology.

[@christinalafferty6073]

@@larrywaddell7332 I have not heard of Dave White. That is unfortunate. It's a really terrible way to convince anyone of your belief system, whatever the belief system is.

[@larrywaddell7332]

@@christinalafferty6073 I agree with you Christina. Apparently it is a fairly common practice when one does not have an argument with which to refute your opponent.

[@bibleman7757]

hertic there

[@dimitartodorov4826]

Yes. Calvin is a heretic.

[@PepeLeFunk]

Hertic? LOL

[@jonanthony6179]

@@dimitartodorov4826 prove it? You cant

[@jackrichardsen9271]

It's a shame he discredits his entire position at the end there by falling in line with the progressive worldview.

[@timclark2925]

2 verses in the Bible commonly misunderstood and misinterpreted are I Timothy 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9......I Tim 2:4 means that God desires that ALL kinds of men to be saved; not ALL men to be saved.....Its the same word where it says that the love of money is a root of ALL kinds of evil; not the love of money is the root of ALL evil. And ALL kinds of men will be saved in that heaven will be represented by all nations, tribes and tongues..... on 2 Peter 3:9 you have to look to the first verses of I and II Peter and they say that they are addressed TO GOD's ELECT. So 2 Peter is saying that God desires that NONE of the ELECT shall perish; it is not saying that God wants to save ALL men. God did not desire for Hitler to be saved ; for example.....nor the Antichrist; nor the false prophet....etc.....God wants ALL His Elect sheep to be saved; and they will be; not one more and not one less. Jesus clearly said that ALL the Sheep get saved......John 6:37-39 "37 All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. 38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day."

[@Berean_with_a_BTh]

Troll

[@timclark2925]

baby ....please try to grow up.....smh

[@Berean_with_a_BTh]

Tell me, was that response of your own free will or do you blame God for it? Before replying, look up Augustinian Calvinism...

[@timclark2925]

@@Berean_with_a_BTh your understanding is so very low....of course it was my free will......humans have free will....they just don't have free will to be regenerated.....now I know I'm really dealing with someone who understands little

[@Berean_with_a_BTh]

​@@timclark2925 No, you're just an ignorant troll. You have posted other comments here absolutely denying the existence of free will: _I'll easily destroy your false free-will theology....the bible does not teach free will._ So now we have a remarkable contradiction of Augustinian Calvinism from someone who knows nothing of my theology on the subject.

[@dannorris8478]

Martin Luther said free will was a thing that existed in name only, and he was right. Today the Church believes in the “three yard line gospel”. Jesus gets the ball down to the three yard line but he is unable to score the winning touchdown so he has to hand it off to you and your freewill. The three yard line gospel and its underlying premise of free will is destroyed in the following five arguments. 1. The gospel is the powerful word of God that saves and results in the new birth. Acts 11:14 he will declare to you a message by which zyou will be saved, you and all your household. The word for saved is a passive participle it indicates the message will save and the recipients of the message will be acted upon by this message. 1 Peter 1:22-24 since you have been born again, enot of perishable seed but of imperishable, through fthe living and abiding word of God; 24 for g“All flesh is like grass and all its glory like the flower of grass. The grass withers, and the flower falls, 25 hbut the word of the Lord remains forever.” And this word iis the good news that was preached to you. In this passage the gospel is the word of God that produces the new birth. The term born again here is a passive participle again indicating those who experience it are acted upon. This passive participle is used again in the third chapter of John and the first epistle of John 6 times, and it is passive in every instance of the NT i have looked at. The clear teaching is that being born into this world or the kingdom of God is an act of God. Babies don’t give birth to themselves. See also James 1:18, John 1:12,13, 1 Thessalonians 1:5, 2 Thessalonians 2:14 2. The new birth results in faith. John 3:3 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is nborn oagain2 he cannot psee the kingdom of God. The seeing mentioned here is obviously faith and it is the result of the new birth. 1 John 5:1 - Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him. Again the participle for born is perfect passive, it points to the new birth as occurring prior to the believing. Paul also uses other metaphors for the new birth like new creation Galatians 6:15. circumcision of the heart Romans 2:29, Colossians 2:11. that point to divine agency not human agency in calling, regeneration or whatever you want to call it. 3. Faith is considered a gift. Philippians 1:29 For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, According to Daniel Wallace in his Greek grammar the pronoun “this” can refer most likely back to either “grace by faith salvation” or it could have an “adverbial effect” that could be translated “and especially”, this points to faith as a gift. This is most likely from the context, since Paul thinks men are dead and are raised by grace, see 2:5. 4. Grace is an attribute of God that is a sovereign and effective work that results in the salvation of souls in every aspect of their salvation. 2 Timothy 1:9 who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began, Galatians 1:15 But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace, 2 Corinthians 12:9 - But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me. Note how Paul in this verse Paul equates grace with the “power”( my power) of God in the first sentence and the “power of Christ”, in the second. 1 Corinthians 15:10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me. 2 Corinthians 9:8 And God is able to make all grace abound to you, so that having all sufficiency in all things at all times, you may abound in every good work. “God is able” to make grace abound not man. Ephesians 2:5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ-by grace you have been saved- Ephesians 3:7 Of this gospel I was made a minister according to the gift of God’s grace, which was given me by the working of his power. Gods grace is transmitted by the “working of his power”. 1 Peter 5:10 And after you have suffered a little while, the God of all grace, who has called you to his eternal glory in Christ, will himself restore, confirm, strengthen, and establish you. 5. Individuals are placed in union with Christ by God and this union encompasses every aspect of their salvation. In each of these passages Paul uses the phrase “in Christ” and attributes this work to God not men. 1 Corinthians 1:30 And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, This would be a false statement if man placed himself in Christ through his faith. Ephesians 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, 1 Corinthians 1:4 I give thanks to my God always for you because of the grace of God that was given you in Christ Jesus, Why thank God if man is the cause of his being placed in Christ? 2 Corinthians 1:21 And it is God who establishes us with you in Christ, and has anointed us, See also 2 Timothy 1:9 above Many other arguments could be added to this like predestination, calling, Romans 8:28,29, etc. But this is sufficient for anyone willing to settle with scripture. For those committed to their “ idol free will”as the great Puritan John Owen called it no scripture is ever sufficient.