The Sovereignty of God - Douglas Wilson | Reformed Basics #1

The great preacher Charles Spurgeon once responded, when asked how he reconciled God's sovereignty with human responsibility, that he did not-he never reconciled friends. There is no tension between the authority of the Creator and the freedom of the creature.
Watch the Reformed Basics on Amazon Prime Video: bit.ly/reformed-basics.
For more resources, please visit christkirk.com.

[@jackuber7358]

It is truly amazing that in just 18+ minutes, Paster Doug covered more practical theology than I have encountered in months of small-group Bible study or Sunday school, which is utterly shameful.

[@Gericho49]

Reformed theology demands that man cant co operate with God's Will - Irresistible Grace is the sugar coated term to suggest man has no part at all to play in his salvation. It also suggests we are just puppets or wind up toy things of a fickle, capricious god . This teaches that there is no free will even in the supposed elect. It states that God will force His elect to accept His gift of eternal life and they have no choice in the matter at all. They must accept His offer. Once one is saved, yes. I believe that once you are saved, the Holy Spirit will continue to draw you back to repentance. But for the unsaved, God does not force anyone to come to Him which is what this doctrine teaches. Again, it is by one's decision to accept Christ's sacrifice that brings you into His family. This is not a work and no glory goes to man (Eph 2:8-9) But God wants obedience and submission. Forced obedience isn't true submission and it is not the kind of follower that would bring God full glory *YES, The grace of God is RESISTABLE,* according to St. Paul: "You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. For through the Spirit, by faith, we wait for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith working through love. You were running well; who hindered you from obeying the truth?" (Gal. 5:4-7).

[@robertleitzel756]

Sounds like you went to a good Bible study and Sunday school, if your impression from this video is that the teacher covered theological topics well you definitely have the opposite reaction to good teaching.

[@daleb.3514]

I have watched this over and over again and I am sure I will continue to do so. This teaching is a tremendous blessing and opens a chasm of further understanding of God's Word.

[@imranmunsif2351]

90 proofs from the bible that Jesus is not God nor the literal son of God. Compiled by Adenino Otari There is not a single verse in the Bible where Prophet Jesus Christ (peace and blessings be upon him) himself says that " I am God " or where he says to " worship me ". The only verse that incorrectly gives the idea that Prophet Jesus (peace and blessings be upon him) is divine, is the verse - "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life" ( John 3:16). This word "begotten" was removed from the Bible by Christian scholars saying that it was an " interpolation " in the Revised Standard Version of the Bible (1952). Furthermore, when God (all glory and praise be to Him) calls somebody as His " son" in the Bible - He means that person is a pious servant of His and not His biological son. Prophet Jacob (peace and blessings be upon him) is called as a son of God (all glory and praise be to Him) in the Bible and God (all glory and praise be to Him) goes all the way to call him as His " first born ". This whole idea that Prophet Jesus (peace and blessings be upon him) is divine is the false teaching of the church and not the true teaching of Prophet Jesus (peace and blessings be upon him) All 4 Gospels record Prophet Jesus (peace and blessings be upon him) as saying, “Blessed are the peace-makers; they will be called sons of God.” The word ‘son’ cannot be accepted literally because in the Bible, God (all glory and praise be to Him) apparently addresses many of His chosen servants as ‘son’ and ‘sons.’ The Hebrews believed God (all glory and praise be to Him) is One, and had neither wife nor children in any literal sense. Therefore, it is obvious the expression ‘son of God’ merely meant ‘Servant of God’; one who, because of faithful service, was close and dear to God (all glory and praise be to Him) as a son is to his father. Christians who came from a Greek or Roman background, later misused this term. In their heritage, ‘son of God’ signified an incarnation of a god or someone born of a physical union between male and female gods. This can be seen in Acts 14: 11-13, where we read that when Paul and Barnabas preached in a city of Turkey, pagans claimed they were gods incarnate. They called Barnabas the Roman god Zeus, and Paul the Roman god Hermes.

[@imranmunsif2351]

Furthermore, the New Testament Greek word translated as ‘son’ are ‘pias’ and ‘paida’ which mean ‘servant,’ or ‘son in the sense of servant.’ These are translated to ‘son’ in reference to Prophet Jesus (peace and blessings be upon him) and ‘servant’ in reference to all others in some translations of the Bible. So, consistent with other verses, Prophet Jesus (peace and blessings be upon him) was merely saying that he is God’s (all glory and praise be to Him) servant. Additional problems with Trinity To a christian, God (all glory and praise be to Him) had to take human form to understand temptation and human suffering, but the concept is not based on any clear words of Prophet Jesus (peace and blessings be upon him). In contrast, He does not need to be tempted and suffer in order to be able to understand and forgive man’s sins, for He is the all knowing Creator of man. This is expressed in the verse: ‘And the Lord said: ‘I have surely seen the affliction of My people that are in Egypt, and I have heard their cry because of their taskmasters; for I know their pains.’ (Exodus 3:7) He forgave sin before Prophet Jesus’ (peace and blessings be upon him) appearance, and He continues to forgive without any assistance. When a believer sins, he may come before God (all glory and praise be to Him) in sincere repentance to receive forgiveness. Indeed, the offer to humble oneself before Him and be saved is made to all humankind. ‘And there is no God else beside Me; a just God and a Savior; there is none beside Me. Look to Me, and be saved, all the ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is none else.’ (Isaiah 45:21-22, Jonah 3:5-10) Biblically, people can receive forgiveness of sins through sincere repentance sought directly from God (all glory and praise be to Him). This is true at all times and in all places. There has never been a need for the so-called intercessionary role Prophet Jesus (peace and blessings be upon him) plays in attaining atonement. The facts speak for themselves. There is no truth to the Christian belief that Prophet Jesus (peace and blessings be upon him) died for our sins and salvation is only through Prophet Jesus (peace and blessings be upon him). What about the salvation of people before Prophet Jesus (peace and blessings be upon him)? Prophet Jesus’ (peace and blessings be upon him) death brings neither atonement from sin, nor is it in any way a fulfillment of biblical prophecy. Christians claim that in the birth of Prophet Jesus (peace and blessings be upon him), there occurred the miracle of the incarnation of God (all glory and praise be to Him) in the form of a human being. To say that God (all glory and praise be to Him) became truly a human being invites a number of questions. Let us ask the following about the man-God Prophet Jesus (peace and blessings be upon him). What happened to his foreskin after his circumcision (Luke 2:21)? Did it ascend to heaven, or did it decompose as with any human piece of flesh? During his lifetime what happened to his hair, nails, and blood shed from wounds? Did the cells of his body die as in ordinary human beings? If his body did not function in a truly human way, he could not be truly human as well as truly God (all glory and praise be to Him). Yet, if his body functioned exactly in a human way, this would nullify any claim to divinity. It would be impossible for any part of God (all glory and praise be to Him), even if incarnate, to decompose in any way and still be considered God (all glory and praise be to Him). The everlasting, one God (all glory and praise be to Him), in whole or in part, does not die, disintegrate, or decompose: ‘For I the Lord do not change.’ (Malachi 3:6) Did Prophet Jesus’ (peace and blessings be upon him) flesh dwell in safety after his death? Unless Prophet Jesus’ (peace and blessings be upon him) body never underwent ‘decay’ during his lifetime he could not be God (all glory and praise be to Him), but if it did not undergo ‘decay’ then he was not truly human. Bible says that God (all glory and praise be to Him) is not man ‘God is not a man’ (Numbers 23:19) ‘For I am God, and not man’ (Hosea 11:9) Prophet Jesus ( peace and blessings be upon him) is called a man many times in the Bible ‘a man who has told you the truth’ (John 8:40) ‘Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know.’ (Acts 2:22) ‘He will judge the world in righteousness through a man whom He has appointed’ (Acts 17:31) ‘the man Christ Jesus’ (Tim. 2:5)

[@imranmunsif2351]

The Bible says that God (all glory and praise be to Him) is not a son of man ‘God is not a man nor a son of man’ (Numbers 23:19) The Bible often calls Prophet Jesus (peace and blessings be upon him) ‘a son of man’ or ‘the son of man.’ ‘so will the son of man be’ (Matthew 12:40) ‘For the son of man is going to come’ (Matthew 16:27) ‘until they see the son of man coming in His kingdom.’ (Matthew 28) ‘But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority’ (Mark 2:10) ‘because he is the son of man’ (John 5:27) In the Hebrew scriptures, the ‘son of man’ is also used many times speaking of people (Job 25:6; Psalm 80:17; 144:3; Ezekiel 2:1; 2:3; 2:6-8; 3:1-3).Since God ( all glory and praise be to Him) would not contradict Himself by first saying He is not the son of a man, then becoming a human being who was called ‘the son of man’, he would not have done so. Remember God (all glory and praise be to Him) is not the author of confusion. Also, human beings, including Prophet Jesus (peace and blessings be upon him), are called ‘son of man’ specifically to distinguish them from God (all glory and praise be to Him), who is not a ‘son of man’ according to the Bible. The Bible says that Prophet Jesus (peace and blessings be upon him) denied he is God (all glory and praise be to Him) Prophet Jesus (peace and blessings be upon him) spoke to a man who had called him ‘good,’ asking him, ‘Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.’ (Luke 18:19) And he said to him, ‘Why are you asking me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.’ (Matthew 19:17) Prophet Jesus (peace and blessings be upon him) did not teach people that he was God (all glory and praise be to Him) If Prophet Jesus (peace and blessings be upon him) had been telling people that he was God (all glory and praise be to Him), he would have complimented the man. Instead, Prophet Jesus (peace and blessings be upon him) rebuked him, denying he was good, that is, Prophet Jesus (peace and blessings be upon him) denied he was God (all glory and praise be to Him).

[@imranmunsif2351]

The Bible says that God (all glory and praise be to Him) is greater than Prophet Jesus (peace and blessings be upon him) ‘My Father is greater than I’ (John 14:28) ‘My father is greater than all.’ (John 10:29) Prophet Jesus (peace and blessings be upon him) can not be God (all glory and praise be to Him) if God (all glory and praise be to Him) is greater than him. The Christian belief that the Father and son are equal is in direct contrast to the clear words from him. Prophet Jesus (peace and blessings be upon him) never instructed his disciples to worship him ‘When you pray, say Our Father which art in heaven.’ (Luke 11:2) ‘In that day, you shall ask me nothing. Whatsoever you ask of the Father in my name.’ (John 16:23) ‘The hour cometh and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth; for the Father seeketh such to worship him.’ (John 4:23) If Prophet Jesus (peace and blessings be upon him) was God (all glory and praise be to Him), he would have sought worship for himself Since he didn’t, instead he sought worship for God (all glory and praise be to Him) in the heavens, therefore, he was not God (all glory and praise be to Him). Prophet Jesus (peace and blessings be upon him) worshipped the only true God (all glory and praise be to Him). ‘that they might know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.’ (John 17:3) ‘he continued all night in prayer to God.’ (Luke 6:12) ‘Just as the son of man did not come to be served, but to serve’ (Matthew 20:28) How did Prophet Jesus (peace and blessings be upon him) pray to God (all glory and praise be to Him? ‘he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, ‘My Father’ (Matthew 26:39) ‘During the days of Jesus’ life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission.’ (Hebrews 5:7) Who was Prophet Jesus (peace and blessings be upon him) praying to when he fell on his face? Was Prophet Jesus (peace and blessings be upon him) crying in tears to himself pleading to be saved from death? No man, sane or insane, prays to himself! Surely the answer must be a resounding ‘No.’ He was praying to ‘the only true God" (all glory and praise be to Him). Prophet Jesus (peace and blessings be upon him) was the servant of the One Who sent him. Can there be a clearer proof that Prophet Jesus (peace and blessings be upon him) was not God (all glory and praise be to Him)? Disciples did not believe Prophet Jesus (peace and blesdings be upon him) was divine. The Acts of the Apostles in the Bible details the activity of the disciples over a period of 30 years after Prophet Jesus (peace and blessings be upon him) was raised to heaven. Throughout this period, they never referred to him as God (all glory and praise be to Him). For instance Peter stood up with the 11 disciples and addressed a crowd saying: ‘Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.’ (Acts 2:22) For Peter, Prophet Jesus (peace and blessings be upon him) was a servant of God, all glory and praise be to Him (Confirmed In Matthew 12:18) ‘The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus.’ (Acts 3:13) ‘God raised up his servant’ (Acts 3:26) When faced by opposition from the authorities, Peter said ‘We must obey God rather than men! The God of our fathers raised Jesus’ (Acts 5:29-30) The disciples prayed to God (all glory and praise be to Him) just as they were commanded by Prophet Jesus (peace and blessings be upon him) in Luke 11:2, and considered him to be God’s (all glory and praise be to Him) servant. ‘they raised their voices together in prayer to God. ‘Sovereign Lord,’ they said, ‘you made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and everything in them.’ (Acts 4:24) ‘your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed.’ (Acts 4:27) ‘of Your holy servant Jesus.’ (Acts 4:30) ‘I am indeed a servant of God.’ (Quran 19:30) The Bible says that Prophet Jesus (peace and blessings be upon him) was God’s (all glory and praise be to Him) servant ‘Behold, My servant, whom I have chosen, in whom My soul is well pleased.’ (Matt 12:18) Since Prophet Jesus (peace and blessings be upon him) is God’s (all glory and praise be to Him) servant, Prophet Jesus (peace and blessings be upon him) can not be God (all glory and praise be to Him).

[@imranmunsif2351]

The Bible says God (all glory and praise be to Him) had many ‘sons’ First, most people think there are no other verses that contradict or give equal divine sonship to other persons in the Old or New Testament. For Prophet Jesus (peace and blessings be upon him) to be called son of God (all glory and praise be to Him), does not make him a true son of God (all glory and praise be to Him), other wise Prophet Adam, Prophet Jacob (peace and blessings be upon them), Ephraim and many more should also be considered as been sons of God (all glory and praise be to Him) as such they should be worshiped too according to such method. Prophet Adam (peace and blessings be upon him): ‘Adam, which was the son of God.’ (Luke 3:38) Prophet Jacob (peace and blessings be upon him) is God’s son and firstborn: ‘Israel is my son, even my firstborn.’ (Exodus 4:22) Prophet Solomon (peace and blessings be upon him): ‘I will be his father, and he shall be my son.’ (2 Samuel 7:13-14) Ephraim : ‘for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn.’ (Jeremiah 31:9) common people are called the sons of God (all glory and praise be to Him) : ‘Ye are the children of the Lord your God’ (Deuteronomy 14:1)

[@sweetsue6177]

Thank you. Your explanations are a great help for me. English is not my native language (slovenian is). But in my country there is no exposition of Scripture (only few evangelical/lutheran and one baptist church with poor study based explaining and almost no literature in our language avalibale of protestant authors). So thank you again for your faithfulness to the Word.

[@ChristKirk]

Blessings to you, Sue!

[@Gericho49]

​@@ChristKirk “If your Calvinism is true, it means that God creates disposable people, people without any hope,” “It means that God not only allows, but micro-manages and sovereignly ordains, every war and every abortion and every rape of a child. It means that Calvin’s god does not love the world; he hates it because it is full of “totally depraved” individuals . If Calvinism is true, it means that if that dying child that you held in your arms was not among the elect, then God did not love her. He never had any intention of loving her. She was nothing to Him. In fact, he would delight and find glory in her eternal torture in hell.” “And whenever I raise these points with Calvinists, all they can say is that I should be more grateful for my own salvation! It’s like, ‘as long as my eternal destiny is secure, as long as my life is all planned out and taken care of by God, who gives a damn about anyone else!’ How can you be okay with that? How can anyone be okay with that? Why do I feel find this heresy morally offensive?” Only the devil should be at ease with such an abomination!

[@WatcherPrime]

@@Gericho49 You forget yourself. This isn't your deal you are talking about.

[@julienstevenson3112]

While I disagree with some parts of this video (I am not a Calvinist), it was very well made, and clearly displays the strongest possible argumentation for the calvinist definition of sovereignty. Well done

[@ChristKirk]

Thanks, Julien! Blessings!

[@zandrello]

You mean the biblical definition of sovereignty. It has nothing to do with Calvinism. It's what the Bible says.

[@zacharyspickard4897]

Praise God for men like Douglas! Men who so greatly explain doctrinal truths in such a beautiful fashion!

[@bh613]

Pastor Doug! Wow! I walked away from this in awe of it. This is truth. Lord Jesus help us know this so it really makes sense that we can live this. Thank you God for You doing You. Jesus, help me better understand this truth.

[@kelliebrady5480]

Thank you 🙏🏻 so much. I wish our church could teach like this. 😫

[@robertleitzel756]

7:06 Sorry Doug, this one is very easy. If you are looking at the speech, and you close the book, the name “Shakespeare” is on the binder. The speech was written by Shakespeare. MacBeth had no faculty whatsoever to choose his own speech. God is no Shakespeare. He gives all mankind the ability to choose to repent and surrender, or not. Even a cursory reading of scripture reveals this.

[@thebestMcGuffin]

Wow, I’ve never heard God’s sovereignty explained so well

[@ChristKirk]

Thanks, James.

[@joefrescoln]

Biblical sovereignty typically means power and authority to rule as one wills. In the Calvinist systematic, sovereignty typically means exhaustive (meticulous) divine determinism. Different dictionaries can make (even well meaning) theological conversations needlessly more difficult.

[@democratpro]

It helped me better understand the Trinity, too.

[@zandrello]

Joe, you mean in the Biblical systematic

[@theholyhispanic]

Great way of making this understandable, you killed it on this one Pastor Doug.

[@SmithFamilyFarmstead]

So thankful for this church, from Kansas City!

[@robertleitzel756]

9:06 We don’t get a lot of scripture in this one and what we do get is not great. In attempting to support a fallacy that God creates people who make free decisions that he has actually determined beforehand, Doug offers Jer 18:5-6 up as a proof text. Maybe he does not know we also have Bibles and we can read just two verses later 8-10 where God gives us two examples of how he will announce his plans and if we humans do differently than he expects, i.e. make free choices outside of his determined will, he will change his plans. Maybe he should pick a different proof text? (Or a different theology?)

[@merecatholicity]

I have been sharing this as much as I can. Probably the best (and most simple) breakdown of the Sovereignty of God. Thank you for taking the time to put together such an incredible resource. Will be using these examples as I explain this very important doctrine. Blessings.

[@ChristKirk]

Thanks Jonah!

[@carterazariah4000]

I dont mean to be off topic but does any of you know of a method to log back into an Instagram account..? I was dumb lost the account password. I appreciate any assistance you can offer me.

[@dominikdominick2981]

@Carter Azariah instablaster ;)

[@carterazariah4000]

@Dominik Dominick Thanks so much for your reply. I found the site on google and Im waiting for the hacking stuff now. Seems to take a while so I will reply here later when my account password hopefully is recovered.

[@carterazariah4000]

@Dominik Dominick it worked and I now got access to my account again. I'm so happy:D Thanks so much, you really help me out :D

[@dredgeportals]

This is truly mind-blowing stuff.

[@bh613]

Pastor Doug, I will pray I’m able to unpack this to my men’s group. The Holy Spirit will help me discuss and God please give the desire to my fellow brothers in Christ to have a desire to know this truth. God help me do this for You.

[@kated4359]

Love this format; thank you!!

[@NoKingButChrist1689]

DAAAANG NAILED IT!

[@rodmitchell8576]

So helpful, thanks.

[@dominiondefender4009]

Thanks be to God

[@colesmith3185]

Amen! Praise God!

[@frankc-k3q]

My favorite Pastor 🎉

[@hav3nh347]

Thank you, for the information.

[@adamq8216]

Good videos!!

[@Gnmercjr76]

Great study

[@navigatorsway]

Good one.

[@sutdhinanchaowonglert9312]

This deserve more views

[@DianelosGeorgoudis]

Alternative definitions of “true Christian”: “True knowledge of the true God is what makes a true Christian.” - Reformed pastor “A new commandment I give you: that you love one another. By this everyone will know that you are disciples to me, if you have love for one another.” - Christ

[@williamnathanael412]

Love without truth isn't love. Truth without love isn't truth.

[@jeffallanday]

Am I not really a Christian if I don't affirm this idea of sovereignty?

[@lemonslice7286]

Although I disagree with most points, the presentation is well made and clearly explains from a deterministic point of view, much appreciated.

[@lemonslice7286]

By the way there is a difference between Will and Ability.

[@glennmcb4450]

Nice

[@davidgcavada]

❤️

[@GeoffGordonStuart]

This is done really well. Great job on the explanation aswell as the presentation. Will share it along. :)

[@ChristKirk]

Thank you!

[@emsiu65]

​@@ChristKirkEm siu refugee church Christ

[@loavesandfish]

17:30. An ordained choice is not a free choice. Simply stating that it is doesn’t make it so.

[@TheAbnerAndrade]

Was there something already created prior to the inaugural words, given that Scripture says In Genesis 1 that there was a formless earth, and the Spirit of God moved over the waters?

[@SisterBaby]

Could you provide a list of sources you consulted for the information you provided?

[@emsiu65]

Em siu refugee church Christ

[@dw8773]

Smith and Jones? Aliases !! ; )

[@PreachingJesus]

So I understand saying that God ordained whether I go left or right, but that he made it my free choice. How do you explain the more evil deeds? Such as a man murdering a child.

[@toddcote4904]

Sean Scott The first thing to consider is what was foretold by the prophet Isaiah and how this worked into what Peter preached in Acts 2. Isa 53:10 Yet it was the LORD’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, Act 2:23 This man was handed over to you by >>>God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge

[@davidturner1641]

Well i didnt appreciate the video so well And i dont believe in calvinism... So the murderer was NOT a puppet And God/Yah DIDN'T murder the child through the puppet. God doesnt create sin or do sin. We choose to do it. We are NOT 2D Hamlet

[@josiahlutchman4913]

@@davidturner1641 talk about misinterpreting the video. Also you need to look up ordaining and directly ordering

[@mattbarrett9200]

I really enjoyed the video and I’m becoming a big fan of Pastor Doug, but I’m still trying to understand how God ordains our occasional sinful thoughts and actions that still happen after we are saved. Referring to the 100% Hamlet and 100% Shakespeare analogy, how can God be 100% ordaining the same sinful thought that I am 100% responsible for having? He may 100% ordain the cookie dough ice cream decision, but what about the lustful thought that I might have while I’m standing in that same ice cream store? Hope this makes sense. Thanks in advance for your consideration in responding.

[@provotoprevo2609]

Hey - is the question because the thought is seemingly meaningless opposed to you choosing one particular meal for example which might actually make a difference in the material world and history?

[@toddcote4904]

The answer lies within the command where Jesus taught us to pick up our cross and follow Him. His mercy is displayed through us as a result. We will continue to sin, as Paul and John taught, but we will always turn back to the God of Grace, seeking for His mercy. This fits with God's sovereignty and our freedom to choose righteousness. This is also what Paul taught, as revealed through his rhetorical question, "Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?" Our righteousness, therefore, is not contingent upon our good works, but upon a humble and contrite heart that seeks His mercy. Further, this can only be done, by His Spirit. Remember, the Spirit convicts, of sin, righteousness, and judgement. He leads, we follow. The only posture of a righteous person's heart is humility.

[@bh613]

Has Pastor Doug done another deeper dive on this? Appreciate any follow up. Thanks.

[@josiahlutchman4913]

I think your answer can be found it looking at the two types of liberty. Your creaturely liberty and the moral liberty given by the holy spirit. I think the ordaining bit is misunderstood, God ordains it because you have free will, you aren't catching God off guard when you have a lustful thought.

[@jeffallanday]

The short answer is NO God does not ordain sin. Doug Wilson is incorrect.

[@calebhayes7691]

I'm having a hard time understanding how the "Great sea of Being" analogy Doug presented is incorrect... If you define the category as containing "anything and everything that exists at all" how could that NOT include God? Surely Doug is not trying to say that God does not exist at all? And since God DOES exist, what in that "sea of being" could be larger than Him? Please help me understand. I am trying to be careful with my words, I am not arguing that God is a creature, or that He was created at some point, He is Eternal, and Uncreated. But Doug seems to be implying that for something to exist, it must be created. But that obviously is not supported by scripture when discussing the nature of God.

[@dver89]

Why do calvinists take the idea of being dead in sin to such an extreme? I have always thought it meant that you can't live a perfect life and therefore you can't save yourself, i.e. you are dead spiritually because you have sinned. To me that seems like the simple and obvious reading. But calvinists say that being "dead in sin" means that literally anything you do is sin, even if it is the right choice (i.e. an "unregenerate" person choosing to abstain from drunkenness - the analogy that Doug used). It is so strange to me. In all sincerity, this view of spiritual deadness really seems like arbitrary eisegesis to me. Jesus said "even you who are sinners know how to give good gifts to your children, so how much more can God give good gifts to those who ask" Does that sound like Jesus is saying that sinful parents who give their children a good gift are sinning by giving their children a good gift? Of course not. But the calvinist would have to assume that if the parent who is giving the good gift to the child is unregenerate, then even the act of giving of a good gift to your own child is a sin. To compound the issue, Jesus said that God will give good gifts to those who ask. Can an unregenerate person ask God for a good gift? Doesn't seem likely from a calvinist perspective - most calvinists would say they could, but they wouldn't because they are still dead in sin (and there we go again with the dead in sin idea). So can only regenerate people ask God for good gifts? And if they are asking God for good gifts, isn't it true that the only reason they're asking is because they were lucky enough to be part of the elect and because God ordained for them to ask after being regenerated? Or did God both ordain for them to ask for the good gift AND ordain that they would ask for the good gift freely? And am I really supposed to assume that all of these questions are implicit in the statement from Jesus that "Even sinners can give good gifts to their children so how much can God do it for those who ask"? None of that seems to be present ni the statement from Jesus. It seems fairly straightforward.

[@robertleitzel756]

At 9:02 we come upon the most ridiculous analogy yet. This one is a doozy. Here Doug gives an illustration of a customer choosing an ice cream flavor and states that God not only ordained which flavor the man would choose, but also ordained it freely. And which flavor was that? Doug says cookie dough. But as we all know cookie dough to man is not cookie dough to God. God ordained the man to choose chocolate so when the man chose cookie dough he was really choosing chocolate because that is what God ordained. And the clerk did not fail in his duties either. Hid also ordained that the clerk would actually serve the man strawberry ice cream which the clerk did, scooping out three big spoonfuls of orange sherbet and announcing “here is your vanilla!” Which actually was cherry all the time. Words have no meaning, free is determined and determined is free and God is good. Right Doug? Then at 10:17 Doug gives us a whopper. He tells us that if we disagree with him that determined = free it is only because we believe that his representation is like a puppet pulling the strings of a puppet. But the puppeteer and the puppet are in the same system so they don’t count as an analogy because God and man are in different systems. This is terrible logic. The puppeteer is outside of the system just like God is. The puppet is in the show/on the stage/ in view of the audience. The puppeteer is behind the scenes, invisible just like God. No, the puppet/puppeteer analogy is spot on.

[@ChristKirk]

Thanks for watching, Robert!

[@robertleitzel756]

@@ChristKirk no rebuttal?

[@ChristKirk]

No, unfortunately we don't have time to answer lengthy objections. But we mean it genuinely, thanks for interacting with the content. Blessings!

[@Gericho49]

Two verses that destroy socalled reformed theology!! The latter maintains God has decided everyones fate before the creation of the world and man cannot in anyway cooperate or change God's Will _(even though we pray for it in the Lord's Prayer)_

[@willgenio2]

About God being infinitely greater than Shakespeare: Shakespeare is unable to enter his creation. Sure, he can write a character named Shakespeare into it, and this character may save someone. But this does not make Shakespeare, the author, a hero. Shakespeare is unable to have a relationship with his characters, since they don't exist in the same "place". Also, complaining that Hamlet is infinitely lesser than us may be a way of complaining that God is infinitely greater than Shakespeare, since we are God's creation. I prefer the clay and potter analogy of Jeremiah 18. It shows a God that is willing to let its creation spoil in his hand, building it according to how it answers.

[@toddcote4904]

I think your potter/ pot reference is off..... How exactly does a pot answer back to it's potter? It's a pot.

[@willgenio2]

@@toddcote4904 It is as off as Jeremiah 18.

[@davidturner1641]

@@toddcote4904 it isnt off I can answer to God/Yah I can argue and rebel The reality is that my argument creates NO change in the potter or Creator AND my argument doesn't change the basics of how the Creator created me. Finally, Paul OFTEN exaggerates what he is saying...everyone should KNOW this. Certainly God/Yah is totally sovereign. That doesn't mean he doesn't allow us choices. John 3:16 for God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten son that whosoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." ...we cannot be so foolish and endnit there 3:17 "for HE did NOT send His son to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him" So, God's will was to save us if we choose to believe. His WILL is NOT to condemn!!!

[@toddcote4904]

@@davidturner1641 I'm sorry my friend, but it's clear you don't know what you're talking about. You're relying on your "reasoning" too much. And you're not allowing for the different categories of people that exist. Do you believe God is Father to all humans of all time? You don't have the right context for John 3:16-17 either. Paul is not exaggerating in Romans 9, he's anticipating their question and answering it from Jer 18.

[@toddcote4904]

@@willgenio2 Have you ever seen a pot "talk back" to it's potter? I haven't....

[@toddcote4904]

I like the presentation, but disagree on the "free" part. Could you elaborate? I think a useful working definition of free will is: the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion. However, I think humans cannot make any decision that is not constrained by an internal or external constraint, nor the fate God desires to bring about. Therefore, "free" is a non sequitur. Further, outside of Christ, one's ability to act according to their desire is bound to sin, and therefore inextricably unfree. Are you defining "free" in a different way? Otherwise great video!

[@ChristKirk]

Hey Todd - consider the Westminster Confession of Faith's section on free will: crowncovenantchurch.org/confessions/WestminsterCOF.aspx?QuestionID=9&pageid=0&confession=true&q=Chapter%209%20-%20Of%20Free%20Will.

[@robertleitzel756]

@@ChristKirk it’s that exact section that the confession goes off the rails. Very poor document.

[@robertleitzel756]

Humans can absolutely make decisions that are free from constraint, it’s what is meant by “make them in our image.” Otherwise we would be nothing more than animals, unable to freely choose to worship God or not.

[@toddcote4904]

@@robertleitzel756 That's not a serious reply. You're "free" to have your opinion though. 😉

[@virtualpilgrim8645]

How many of you have already redefined Christian as Judeo-Christian? Thinking this is a biblically based term when, if fact, it is a political term rooted in Zionism.

[@paulchamberlain4810]

Parts one and two virtually all Christians can agree with. I would add though that we are made in the image of God, and that is why parables and analogies can be drawn between creatures and the Creator and creatures. Just as the word of God does on many occasions. The Creator is infinitely more than his image, but he is not less than his image. Part three does not give an argument for Calvinism. Part four has two analogies. First, Hamlet is a fictional character. If you’re arguing for pantheism, this argument works. (This might explain Jonathan Edwards’ panentheistic tendencies). Also, this analogy makes God too small. God is able to be sovereign over creatures who make real free choices. God doesn’t need to deterministically cause all actions or play both sides of the board to be sovereign. He is more than a boy playing with toy soldiers. Second, Jeremiah 18 is a warning to Israel to change. Read the whole chapter. It warns Israel to do right because God can determine their outcome like a clay pot. It warns Israel not to do wrong because God can determine their outcome like a clay pot. The argument is not that God determines all of their actions, but a warning for them to act right because God is in control of the outcome either way. Part five he does not explain how the puppet master being outside the system makes any difference. Second, he is assuming his theology into Romans 9. Wouldn’t it make more sense that the ones who say “why does he yet find fault“ are like the folks described in Romans 3:5-8 who complain that the Lord will be glorified even though they sin through His judgment? After all, that actually fits with Jeremiah 18. And the previous chapter 3 in the same book of Romans. And with the conclusion to Roman 9 given by the author (9:30-33). And the same author’s use of the metaphor of pots in a different context (II Timothy 2:20-21). Part six is either arguing (a) Adam had libertarian free will in all areas before the fall and after the fall we only have libertarian free will outside of choices of righteousness (and if God restored this freedom, isn’t that what the Arminians argue?), or (B) is not mentioning that God deterministically causes all our desires whether moral or otherwise. The first is not common to Calvinism. The second when clearly stated doesn’t help Calvinism. Spurgeon statement is a rhetorical assertion not an argument. (Of course, this methodology might fit with a theology started by a rhetorician, Augustine.) Also, the quote from the Westminster confession seems to be saying A but also ~A. That may be trippy like a Buddhist koan, but it’s not good reasoning. William Lane Craig has argued strongly that the best explanation for this passage would be Molinism. Though I have my disagreements with aspects of Molinism, I think he makes a strong case for that. Questions to discuss: (1) a robust view of God is not one that describes him as like a little boy playing with toy soldiers, a narcissist, or a chess player who can only win the game by playing both sides of the board. (11) we do not like the analogy of the puppet and puppet master because (A) it denies reality as we experience it, (B) denies the teachings of the Bible, see above, (C) it indirectly attacks God through degrading his image, (D) it describes God in an extremely low way, see above, and (E) it is impossible to rationally affirm, as if we do it’s just what we were predestined to do by a God who predestines most people to think wrong things. This is applying CS Lewis’s argument against determinism (which I have used with atheists), and it works here, too. Finally note that sovereignty is not a synonym for determinism. It means to be king or absolute monarch. This is it’s common usage, dictionary definition, political science meaning, and meaning of the biblical synonym (king whether in noun or verb form). That Calvinists use sovereignty in a way outside of its normal usage when there’s a good word for what they’re talking about, determinism, and talk as non-Calvinists as noted above indicates that either (A) they are extremely uncomfortable or confused with their system at a deep level, (B) they are not willing to be honest about what they believe with others, or (C) both of the above. Or to put it another way, they have to live on borrowed capital and use someone else’s worldview to get by.

[@ChristKirk]

Thanks for watching and engaging, Paul!

[@allencampbell3958]

Out of the many criticisms I have, let me list some of them topic-wise :- 1) In the billiard balls analogy, the main assumption being made is that God, because he is outside the system, is excused from being a bully as he "sovereignly" controls people and situations, against their will. No evidence for such a god in Scripture. 2) As the general calvinist does, you have described god as a determinist by comparing him to Shakespeare who dictates people's actions, although they are somehow "free", i.e. compatiblistic free will. Again no evidence of a deterministic god or compatiblistic freedom of man. Under your explanation, God is directly the author of evil, and man is a puppet, although you deny both saying that he is outside the system, which simply doesnt make a difference to the argument. 3) You take up the issue of how man is responsible if god is deterministic. But you cant reason why that happens, and actually there is no reason to give because that doesnt happen in reality. All you give is some verses which talk about God's authority to do what he wants. Reality is God acts because he foreknows in his sovereignty, but you think god can do anything he wants, even outside his character like arbitrarily showing favouritism in people's salvation. Forget about support, Scripture actually refutes such a god. 4) You should read about Cornelius, a man who didnt know Christ and didnt have the Spirit (un-regenrated in your language) actually pleased God by doing good works, and God seeing his heart, led him to know Christ (no handpicking from the crowd). Even the prodigal son and God's church itself in Revelation 3 is called "dead" indicating that deadness doesnt mean inability to respond spiritually, but that we are just separated from God in our sin, and we need to confess, repent, and be reconciled to God through Jesus. Calvinism is unbiblical nonsense. It is all eisegesis of Scripture to suit man-made doctrines, which should be unacceptable in the body of Christ. If you want logical answers to biblical topics to shape a biblical worldview for yourself, listen to Dr Leighton Flowers on the youtube channel Soteriology101. God be with you and guide you into Truth.

[@RebeccaJeffersonOAC]

Just a couple of things here. Really well-written rebuttal, btw. A couple of scenarios come to mind. The lying spirit in 1 or 2 Kings and the Scripture that says that God has prepared our works to do ahead of time. So in Cornelius' case, God prepared those good works for him to do, and we know that he was chosen because he was saved later on. The works didn't save him, but God did see those works. Perhaps Cornelius was already saved and just hadn't been filled with the Spirit yet, or perhaps something else is at play. We know all of our righteous works are like filthy rags in God's sight, and there is none righteous. Yet God will judge everyone on the last day, whether they have done good or evil. So you're forcing me to think about some things, but that is always a good thing, never a bad thing. Blessings.

[@philipbenjamin4720]

Yes God is not part of creation. Yes God can create in ways that we cannot - he can simply speak words and things come into being. He doesn't mould creation with his hands as a potter moulds clay - an idea which would mean that at that moment he had stepped into creation. And he also doesn't exist in time - we can't think about his decisions in respect of what happened before them or after them. But whilst these things are true - and make God different to us - they don't break causation. If we say that God created the world it's a statement of causation even if we don't know by what means he is able to achieve it. Making analogies about Shakespeare and plays doesn't help - just because the play is operating at a different level to Shakespeare doesn't mean that Shakespeare doesn't WITHIN HIS WORLD cause Hamlet to speak every word he says. I therefore don't see how any of what is said here prevents every pre-ordained event in creation from being laid at God's feet. If there is something I am missing I welcome feedback.

[@robertleitzel756]

6:07 “if we assume God is within the system this simply turns God into a Cosmic Bully.” What a dumb thing to say. God is also within the system. He is outside of it and with in it. (See: Omnipresence.) And that does not make him a cosmic bully. What makes him a cosmic bully is what Calvinists say, that he made most of mankind with no ability to repent from their sins, and then punishes them for eternity anyways. No wonder people see right through Calvinism.

[@robertzeurunkl8401]

This is so weird. I literally just made this same "authorship" argument last week, not knowing that it was a "thing" already. I asked if Dickens made Nicholas Nickleby's Uncle Ralph mistreat him? The obvious answer being no. Dickens doesn't appear anywhere in the story, and says nothing to Ralph. So, while God may ordain the STORY, he in no way is involved in Uncle Ralph's mistreatment of Nicholas. Because *IN* the story, Ralph does what he does because he is who he is; and there is no one whispering in his ear.

[@robertleitzel756]

Wait, what do you mean the obvious answer is no! The obvious answer is yes. Of course Dickens made the uncle mistreat him, Dickens wrote the words on that paper! If you don’t see him in the words, close the book and look on the spine. His name will be there. You seem to have a difficulty separating reality from fiction, maybe that’s why Calvinism comes easily? The reality is the paper and typeset in your hands that you’re looking at, that Dickens wrote. The abstract concept that you form in your mind about the story, and where the characters abuse one another, is make believe in your head. You can think that the characters are making their own decisions, absent or Dickens’ authorship but you’re just imagining. Likewise, it’s foolishness to say that Hod determines all actions and yet is not the author of evil. The writers of the Westminster confession seemed to have the same difficulty separating reality from fiction that you do?

[@robertzeurunkl8401]

@@robertleitzel756 Do you suppose that Ralph Nickelby has ever even heard the name "Charles Dickens?" Even once?

[@robertleitzel756]

@@robertzeurunkl8401 Ralph Nickleby doesn’t exist, he hasn’t ever heard of any body. If, in the story he wrote, Dickens didn’t name any character “Dickens,” then no, in the story the Nickleby character never heard of anyone named Dickens.

[@robertzeurunkl8401]

@@robertleitzel756 Ralph doesn't exist in exactly the same way Dickens doesn't exist. You know that we are talking about an analogy, here, right? Dickens wrote a story, but he is not IN that story himself, making people do bad things. God has written a story, but he is not influencing people in that story to do evil. *INSIDE* the story, the character act out of their own nature. *OUTSIDE* of the story, their actions accomplish the story that God has written. See what I mean now?

[@robertleitzel756]

@@robertzeurunkl8401 We do all know what you mean. In your view, you are suspending reality in order to make believe Ralph’s world is real, not a story written by an author. And in your imagined world, Ralph knows nothing of Dickens the god-author and Ralph makes all his own choices. From Ralph’s point of view Dickens didn’t predestine all of his own choices, Ralph is making them. Your point of view is that this analogy allows for Dickens to be the author and have predestined all of the characters actions while the characters themselves feel like they have made their own free choices. It fails at several points. For one, It’s completely against reality, Ralph isn’t real he’s a character dreamt up by an author so Ralph couldn’t ever “make choices.” For another why would you think Ralph wouldn’t know about Dickens, if Dickens were his God? Ralph couldn’t see the majesty of Dickens’ creation all around him? Ralph couldn’t go into a bookstore and buy a Dickens-Bible? (What would that be anyways, an anthology?) Ralph couldn’t go into a Dickens-church and talk with a Dickens-priest? Thirdly, if God is an author the way Dickens is, then God really is to blame for all of man’s evil the way Dickens is to blame for Ralph’s uncle’s abuse. The only way the uncle can be assigned blame for his actions is if you’re still playing make-believe that he had the ability to choose to do something other than what he was written to do. Remember, at the outset we all agreed in your analogy that Dickens wrote the book and determined all the actions of its characters? None of the characters get to make choices, Dickens gets all the blame. The ‘story author’ analogy of God and predestination/free will doesn’t help the Calvinists’ cause. In fact, it’s one that is used very often by anti-Calvinist arguments because it’s so bad for Calvinism.

[@robertleitzel756]

8:40 “God…can write a play where characters can make free choices that he determined beforehand.” Ah. Now you’re just talking nonsense. Something can’t be free and not free at the same time. Plus, that’s a way-too limited view of God. God is far bigger than the constraints you’re putting him. God is strong enough to make people who can make their own choices, without him having to determine them. In fact, that’s what makes humans human and not just another animal, the ability to make undetermined choices.

[@jameshoyt3692]

Over the years of having to reject and suppress common sense and logic, a calvinist comes desensitized to logic. Their reasoning faculties have been seared as it were with a hot iron.

[@matthewstanger1423]

So the end of this is Read my Bible 😊

[@robertleitzel756]

2:56 “if God created everything that exists he did not do it from within the thing that exists.” Let’s see how that logic plays out. Can a carpenter create a house from outside the house? Yes. Can a carpenter create a house from within the house? Sure. So God could create reality and also interact with it from inside. Ok. Calvinism disproven.

[@jackshadow325]

When God ordains free individuals to do evil freely, He is indeed the author of evil. Two plus two does not equal five, even when the Westminster Confession says it does. After the resurrection we will laugh at our foolish Calvinism and Arminianism, and then quickly forget them.

[@billyr9162]

God is the author of everything. Nothing just popped into existence by itself. Duh!

[@jackshadow325]

@@billyr9162 God created the good universe Billy. Now, define "evil".

[@billyr9162]

@@jackshadow325 War, famine, pestilence, disaster darkness, vanity, etc... Amos 3:6 [6]Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it? Lamentations 3:37-38 [37]Who is he that saith, and it cometh to pass, when the Lord commandeth it not? [38]Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?

[@jackshadow325]

@@billyr9162 Okay good. Now, when humans and demons do evil, is that the same as God bringing about evil as stated in the verses you quoted?

[@billyr9162]

@@jackshadow325 Yes. When people do evil God brings it about. That's what The Bible said literally. Only demons are the same thing as self. There's no things floating around in the air waiting to attack people.

[@richceretto5836]

So somewhere along the continuum from Holy, Holy, Holy God to His creation is a divide that places us in the creation and God in a completely different space, place, dimension and or none of the above? God is Spirit, Jesus is 100% God 100% man (?) still and the Holy Spirit is Spirit. They are everywhere they choose to be inside or outside the creation. Would please take out your red marker and highlight my wrong thinking so as to sharpen my iron. Thank you and God bless.

[@ChristKirk]

Rich, this video on the Creator/creature divide goes into that: kzbin.info/www/bejne/fqbQdn1ujpKNpqs

[@screwball1010]

I love your stuff Doug, but am I to understand that you take God to be the author of evil?

[@ChristKirk]

No. Doug holds to the Westminster Confession which states, "God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass, (Eph 1:11; Rom 11:33; Heb. 6:17; Rom 9:15; Rom 9:18): yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, (Jam 1:13; Jam 1:17; 1Jo 1:5); nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established, (Act 2:23; Mat 17:12; Act 4:27-28; Jhn 19:11; Pro 16:33)." You can read his comments on this here: dougwils.com/the-church/s16-theology/westminster-three-of-gods-eternal-decree.html.

[@dragonbro5532]

Thankfully GOD isnt a Zeus, I'm much happier not being a pregnant dad.

[@beberean612]

Calvinists reject the notion that God is responsible for evil, while maintaining that God causally determines all things that come to pass. Some Calvinists try to reconcile this with the "Author/story" analogy, claiming that God is the author of our story, and so within the world of reality, we are responsible characters in His story, as Hamlet is considered a responsible character within Shakespeare's story, even though Shakespeare authored everything Hamlet did. Shakespeare himself is not considered responsible for Hamlet's actions, within the world of Hamlet. In the same way, they claim that God is not responsible for our actions, within the world of reality, even though God has authored everything we do. The problem that arises for the Calvinist who try to distance God from the responsibility of sin and evil in a story that He has authored is this: the flip side of the coin is also true and must be applied to be consistent. If the Author/story analogy is intended to lead us to believe that "we" are responsible for the sin that God has authored in His story, within the world of reality, and that God is not responsible for our sin in the same way that Shakespeare is not responsible for Hamlet's sin, the opposite is also true. How can we say that God is responsible for any good thing that happens within the world of our reality, when the very basis for saying God is not responsible for the "bad" He authors is the separation between the world of the author and the world of the story He is writing? If that separation causes a disconnect between God and the evil in His story, it should also cause a disconnect between God, and the good in His story. At least we should consider it to be true from our perspective within the story, which is the very basis for the argument, right? If we say that God is somehow not responsible for a man's decision to rape, even though God is the author of that man's decision, how can we say that God "is" responsible for a man's decision to preach the gospel, or pray for a brother in need, even though God authored that good in the story? If God, in some mysterious way, is the author of sin, but we are held responsible for that sin within the story, then it is also true that God, in some mysterious way, is the author of good, but within the world of reality, within the story, should we consider ourselves responsible for that good? Should we, as believers living in God's story, consider ourselves responsible for the good in the world, even though God is ultimately and mysteriously the author of it? In reality, Calvinists will say that God is responsible for the good in the world, even though they also believe that He has mysteriously authored that good, but when it comes to sin, they will say that we are responsible, even though God authored that. It seems when it serves the Calvinist to say that we are responsible for something God has authored, like sin, they say we are responsible for that. But when it serves the Calvinist to say that God is responsible for something He has authored, like the good in the world, they say God is responsible. Someone may say, "Well, God has authored Himself into His own story by means of Scripture, and Scripture tells us that we are responsible for sin and God is responsible for good." But this would mean that God has authored Himself into His own story to tell us we are responsible for what He authors, when he authors sin, and He is responsible for what He authors, when He authors good. It would be like Shakespeare telling Hamlet, "Yes, I am the author of this story, but you should consider yourself responsible for page 26, and consider me responsible for page 27," when the only way Hamlet will consider anything, is if Shakespeare has authored him to consider it. Likewise, if Calvinism is true, the only way we will consider anything, is if God has authored us to consider it, right? And so, this means God has authored me, for example, to reject the idea that God has authored me to reject the idea. In other words, if God has authored Himself into His own story to tell us who is responsible for what, and God said that I am responsible for the sin that He authors, this means God has authored me to reject that idea or truth that He is revealing within His story, because the only way for me to reject what God is saying, is if God has authored me to reject it.

[@user-bg5qk3dk7t]

I will never help u. I will hang out down here. I will find a wife down here. And love down here. U have fun up there. U no i felt gods hand in my life many times. Even people around me felt him . Physicslly grabbing us. I have been healed by god. Sooo my point is at the end of all this i am confident god will grab me up and clean me off and save me a spot in heaven. But for u to let me.suffer because u cant miss the chsnce to manipulate me. I hope god understands your logic cause he will be the one to give out just punishments. Again i dont fear god. He has helped me to.many times for me to have doubt of who he favors.

[@ameliaportman7046]

15,000 views 76 comments (a greater number than those visible) I smell a rat.

[@ChristKirk]

Not sure what you mean, Amelia. But we don't hide real comments on our videos. We do get a lot of spam that KZbin hides.

[@ChristKirk]

Out of curiosity I just counted the comments and they match the number given (it includes replies). Cheers!

[@ameliaportman7046]

@@ChristKirk Prior to this comment, total comments/replies was stated as 80. I counted 78. Either you can't count or some aren't visible to me. Nevertheless, 15,000 views and less than 80 comments (prior to this intercourse) is peculiar given the topic matter. Don't you agree?

[@jimmydaniels3835]

Something fishy is deffo going on Amelia

[@ChristKirk]

Not really!

[@TheWildIVY]

Well made, but watching this video is what convinced me Calvinism is wrong. There is no such thing as predestined free will. If God wrote sin into the play, then it was His idea, and something He enjoys, otherwise He would not have added it, if in fact the world is a story written by Him as you assume

[@hardboard82]

You don’t think God knew mankind would sin before He created all things? If God foreknew there would be sin but still chose to create all things, then aren’t you left with the same problems remaining? I think you should further consider this video’s argument regarding Two-ism likened to Hamlet and Shakespeare. Your objections are still operating under One-ism.

[@TheWildIVY]

@@hardboard82 Foreknowledge of their sin is not the same thing as Predestining them to sin

[@hardboard82]

@@TheWildIVY I know. Do you not understand my questions? If you understand what I asked then please answer.

[@TheWildIVY]

@@hardboard82 I understand your question. Sin was not God's idea, it was not His intention for man to disobey Him, but He allowed it to happen (not the same thing) because if man didn't have free will, there would be no relationship, and because He knew He could remove sin

[@hardboard82]

@@TheWildIVY Yet I still see two problems remaining that you and other non-Calvinists attempt to avoid. I’d love to hear your explanation: 1) You say God “allows” sin to happen. If I “allow” someone to harm my children so as not to limit their free will, even though it is not my intention for such a situation to occur, then I would rightfully be deemed wicked. But if I understand you correctly, God is guiltless for preserving free will and allowing sinners to harm children? Why then is it sinful for me to allow something which God would allow? I think Calvinism has a much more coherent explanation for such a scenario. 2) You say man has free will, but do you think man can come to the Father apart from His drawing them in? If yes, then that is unscriptural. If no, then it turns out our “free” will is not fully autonomous.