Why Calvinists CAN'T say “Jesus died for you”

[@jmmanley]

I used to be a Calvinist but now am Catholic-although I guess that proves I was never truly a Calvinist to begin with.

[@IowaRonin]

I used to believe in Catholicism. I still do, but I used to too. - Hitch Medberg

[@matthewbroderick6287]

@YAJUN YUAN We can know we can be saved, if we cooperate with God's saving grace and repent and bear fruit and forgive others and love one another and persevere to the end, as Holy Scripture teaches! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

[@BrewMeister27]

@YAJUN YUAN Catholics can have assurance of salvation, but we can't have certainty. We follow the example of St Paul with this. 4 I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me. 5 Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then every man will receive his commendation from God. - 1 Corinthians 4 While many Protestants claim to have guaranteed salvation, they qualify this on having "saving faith." And saving faith is usually dependent on refraining from serious sins (murder, adultery, apostasy, ect). They say these sins prove a person was never saved to begin with, despite any prior belief or good works. So unless you have certainty about your future actions, you can't have a guarantee of salvation either.

[@kiryu-chan577]

Ha Ha. Calvinists are so unbelievably judgemental. How can they be such blind guides. They cannot see what judgemental hypocrites they are! They neglect the more important things. Love the neighbor. They say do not even associate with a Catholic.

[@johnnylara7032]

@@matthewbroderick6287 Amen! To God be the glory!

[@MrEvoXI]

You’re debate with Dr. James White started my long journey out of Calvinism. Thank you

[@RockGTA]

I'm in the middle of this journey. Apparently a lot of protestants have been converting.

[@intedominesperavi6036]

@@RockGTA I'm one of them.

[@sdboyd]

An epic butt kicking.

[@phil2d2]

Yes, at some point it becomes clear that what the Catholic Church is claiming is true.

[@MrEvoXI]

@@RockGTA I see it too. A Reformed Baptist guy I use to argue with on FB about infant baptism went Eastern Orthodox lol

[@jeffridder1221]

"Oh my Jesus, forgive us our sins, lead All souls to Heaven especially those in most need of your mercy".

[@Nimai_Aquino]

Funny. In portuguese we say that prayer like “oh my jesus, forgive us, deliver us from the fire of hell, lead all souls to heaven, especially those that need the most.”

[@angelbrother1238]

@@Nimai_Aquino amen to both versions of the prayer

[@davidclerget9401]

@@Nimai_Aquino the Latin version is similar to yours: “O mi Jesu, dimitte nobis debita nostra, libera nos ab igne inferni et perduc in caelum omnis animas, praesertim illas misercordia tua.

[@christopherfleming7505]

It's the Fatima prayer. I pray it after every decade of the Rosary.

[@jaybjay4121]

@@Nimai_Aquino Those who need most...starting by the person who was praying that prayer. Im telling this becouse we all need in the same level, we all need most

[@ItsAndy__]

For God so loved his elect that he sent is only son so that anyone he forces to believe in him will not perish but have eternal life - Calvin 3:16

[@SugoiEnglish1]

World refers to Gentiles there. Stop ignoring the Hebraisms.

[@JazzlynWendy]

@@SugoiEnglish1 κόσμον means universe. world. in Greek and john was originally written in Greek

[@SherlockGnomes007]

​@@SugoiEnglish1 You think the Gospel was written in Hebrew or that the authors didn't know Greek well enough to write what they really meant? Wow, God, Jesus, and the Apostles are just miserable losers to you aren't they?

[@Watchmanonthewall77]

I've often wondered, when Calvinists witness, do they tell those they are witnessing to that no matter what they do, they may not be Gods elect? And they may be doom to destruction no matter what🤔

[@Watchmanonthewall77]

If they don't, they are being deceptive👀

[@saoirseryan2546]

We must remember that when we're mad at others that our Beloved died for them, and treat them with due patience and respect

[@jeremysmith7176]

Or as Calvanists have said. We don't know if he did or did not die for them. So give them the benefit of the doubt

[@jeremysmith7176]

@Super Genius Since when is Calvinism a slur? If a church is following Calvin and his following tradition then their Calvanists.

[@Pac81]

I used to listen a lot to James White. When he talks, he makes sense, that is until somebody else comes along who actually knows about these things and absolutely tears apart his arguments. What I am saying is, to the unaware (like me) who listens to Calvinists, it sounds very convincing, but upon closer inspection their interpretation of scripture does fall apart. So thank you for this video, I do hope you and James White can have a discussion or even a debate again soon.

[@intedominesperavi6036]

There is a Proverb about this.

[@Pac81]

@@intedominesperavi6036 I am interested, what proverb? I'd like to look it up. 😊

[@intedominesperavi6036]

I think it comes down to confidence. Yesterday I was going for a walk, and a swan blocked the way. These guys are pretty intimidating, and if you come too close, they will chase you away - often very successfully. But if you have something that will keep them at a distance, like a stick with a brach fork, they will not even touch the stick and retreat slowly. But you are required to also firmly and confidently hold your position.

[@intedominesperavi6036]

@@Pac81 I can't remember it at the moment. When I find it again, I will get back to you!

[@ooooooooo9723]

@@intedominesperavi6036 Perhaps you were thinking about Proverbs 18:17

[@Saluspergratiam]

Went from Calvinist, to Lutheran, to Catholic recently. I'm firmly set in the belief that the Church was founded on Peter

[@SherlockGnomes007]

The only denomination remaining is "Christian." I hope you get there soon! I did the same thing, protestant to Catholic to actual real Christian.

[@GeorgeWKush-tl5do]

Don't tell the early church that. If anyone acted like a pope it was James or Paul. Didn't have popes for a longgg time

[@Watchmanonthewall77]

I'm firmly set that the Church was founded on Christ

[@mariorizkallah5383]

Guys i was predestined to be Catholic 🤷‍♂️

[@TheChunkyCrusader]

Same

[@35TheDarkknight]

😅😅😅

[@three_young_men]

Us as well!

[@angelbrother1238]

Heheh awesome comment and amen to that

[@Cathologia]

Me too!

[@jonphinguyen]

God Bless you for making these types of videos. Your videos helped me find the Catholic Faith, and now they strengthen it. Ave Maria!

[@elijahmcgrath5918]

I'm a protestant but I really like your videos. I'd love to see you interact with some more Christian youtubers if they would be willing. Thanks for what you do it helps me understand my Catholic friends more

[@mortensimonsen1645]

Watch out, you may soon find yourself on the way to become catholic, once you start digging. Best regards from an ex-protestant, now soon-to-be Catholic😊

[@Navii-05]

@@mortensimonsen1645 For a person that takes Scripture as the highest authority for doctrine, converting to Catholicism would be highly unlikely

[@masterchief8179]

@@Navii-05 Unless he finally understands what Scripture means and that the same God Incarnate who did NOT command our faith to gravitate around particular interpretation of texts (actually, He didn’t even command anyone to write anything much less He personally defined the catalogue of inspired books) actually HAS BUILT (oikodomeo) a church (ekklesia) upon one of his apostles’ leadership (Simon Peter) and promised the gates of Hades would never prevail against her (Mt 16, 16-19). He did not promise calm waters, lack of confusion or purism inside but actually advised us that the soldiers of the enemy would be spread out even to the inside, but that it was no reason to rip the field as a pretext to get off from seeing tares among the wheat, since it would destroy good grain and not only the bad ones (Mt 13, 24-46). That’s up to God as a judge to make the call in due time. And the same God Incarnate demanded us to be ONE, in a perfect unity so transcendent that He compared the unity preached to to the substantial unity with the Father inside the Most Holy Trinity (John 17, 10-12). So from here one can understand clear premises. With a bit of good will, Scriptures can be so much deeper than you think into some good old Protestant anti-Catholic prejudices, brother. Don’t get me wrong, I love the way respectful Protestants show appreciation for Sacred Scriptures and I would love to have them home again to ignite our communities with passion and love for the Gospels, only with all the trueness and authentic spirit of faith, hope, charity, from where we can lively attain unity, perseverance and the core apostolic faith transmitted through Jesus to us. God bless!

[@michaelibach9063]

@@Navii-05 you may believe scripture is your highest authority and say such things, but ultimately you made yourself and your opinions of what scripture means the ultimate authority. You usurped Gods authority given via the Church, the Catholic Church and substituted your own.

[@angelbrother1238]

Your our brother in Christ as well my friend :)

[@NocturneVideos]

Such a nice timing when struggling with serious scrupulosity!

[@quinnroddy1110]

Feel you buddy. I just had a good talk in confession today. It can be horrifyingly terrible. Stay strong brother.

[@rhwinner]

Thank God for the Catholic Church or there would be no yardstick with which to measure orthodox Christianity and the Christian landscape would just be a myriad of competing heresies. The Catholic Church speaks with authority, and that is the Holy Spirit that Jesus promised would be with us always. I drop to my knees to thank God for this inestimable blessing to the world and to the church....

[@sabbathfan1969]

Good point 😀👍👍

[@saurondp]

It's like people forget that the Orthodox Church exists. No, sorry, we're still here, and still practicing the same faith as Christians did 2000 years ago, unlike the Catholic church which has introduced too many innovations.

[@doubtingthomas9117]

The yardstick is the teaching of Scripture and practice of the early Church starting in AD 33 on Pentecost in Jerusalem and going forward.

[@rhwinner]

@@doubtingthomas9117 Not bad, but every heresy claims to base it's teaching on scripture. In fact there is not a single line of scripture that is not the basis of disagreement among many different factions even today. Not a single line. That is where sacred tradition comes in and says, 'that an ingenious interpretation but it doesn't align with the inherited understanding of the church as it has come down to us from the Apostles.

[@dustinpaulson1123]

Calvinists be like: "Jesus love me, this I know As for you, I'm not sure, so... If you're not elect, you're reprobate. Sucks for you, for me it's great."

[@Nick-rb1dc]

Not really. It's more accurate to sing "Jesus loves me, this I presume for I'm no more sure than if He loves you. This is because there are no sure signs of Election."

[@Nick-rb1dc]

@Super Genius if you look up Evanescent Grace, you will see it was taught by Calvin, and that teaching is that God gives fake grace to some to make them think they are Elect but are not actually Elect. Since you cannot be sure if Jesus died for you under the Limited Atonement position, you can only assume He died for you, and you can only live and act as if that assumption is correct. There is no objective sign of you being Elect within Calvinism. For example, you might get baptized, but if Jesus didn't die for you then that baptism doesn't do anything for you and proves nothing.

[@spurcalluth6300]

@@Nick-rb1dc, so if a Calvinist cannot have absolute certainty that he will end up in heaven, it is a wicked heretical teaching; when a Catholic cannot have absolute certainty that he will end up in heaven, it is because he is valiantly fighting against the sin of presumption. Cool! So basically, if you want to be a Catholic, you cannot also believe truth (one of the basic properties of all truth is that it is CONSISTENT).

[@Nick-rb1dc]

@@spurcalluth6300 it's not an accurate comparison. A Catholic can have confidence they are in a healthy relationship with God and are walking the right path because there are objective markers they can look to, particularly whether they are living a Christian lifestyle. A Calvinist cannot really do this, because good behavior is not an objective sign of Election, but rather good behavior can accompany someone who is either elect or non-elect who thinks they are elect. Again, see Calvin's teaching on Evanescent Grace. See how often when a long time Calvinist ends up either falling away or leaving to become Catholic that everyone on the Calvinist end says "yeah he was living a good Christian lifestyle all these years but him falling away shows he was never saved in the first place".

[@spurcalluth6300]

@@Nick-rb1dc, it seems as if you don't want to make an accurate comparison. Yes, a Catholic can say they have objective signs of being in a healthy relationship. No, a Catholic can still not say they have confidence they are part of the elect. You know as well as me that Catholicism teaches that (let's take an extreme example to prove the point) Benedict XVI, after a lifetime of being a Catholic theologian and after being the pope, could commit a mortal sin today, not get to confession, and die outside of a state of grace. How is that different from the situation you paint with the Calvinist?

[@HolyKhaaaaan]

I think the only way one could be a Calvinist and unequivocally say Jesus died for you is if he were also universalist.

[@RepublicConstitution]

Calvinism essentially says humans are robots, there is no true free will, Fate and Destiny are fixed, which limits God.

[@duckymomo7935]

thats not how calvinism works; that's hypercalvinism wouldn't saying God doesn't know the future himsefl limit God?

[@MichaelWilson-ky3pp]

@@duckymomo7935 Do you hold to "Irresistible grace"?

[@gregorybarrett4998]

@@MichaelWilson-ky3pp Hi, Michael. A refinement of your question would be, "Do your hold that the only character of grace which is proffered is 'irresistible grace'? This provides space for flexibility in allowing certain instances of irresistible grace, while refraining from insisting that this is the only character of grace which is proffered.

[@duckymomo7935]

@@MichaelWilson-ky3pp yes but not really, the problem with the nomenclatures have always been about misnomers and misunderstanding. it's 'effectual grace.' That is, God win's people over not that God forces someone. The word irresistible conjures up the idea that one cannot possibly offer any resistance to the grace of God. But, beloved, the history of the human race is the history of relentless resistance to the sweetness of the grace of God. What is meant by irresistible grace is not what the word seems to suggest, that grace is incapable of being resisted. Indeed, we are capable of resisting God’s grace, and we do resist God’s grace. But the idea here is that, in spite of our natural resistance to the grace of God, God’s grace is so powerful that it has the capacity to overcome our natural resistance to it. That’s why I prefer the term effectual grace rather than irresistible grace, because this grace effects what God intends to effect by it.

[@MichaelWilson-ky3pp]

@@duckymomo7935 Thank you for your thoughtful response. Yes, I think that is different than simply "irresistible" grace. If man by his free will can reject God's grace then perdition is the fault of man and not of God.

[@tamashii14]

I considered Calvinism many years ago until I studied it and realized Calvinism doctrine isn't sound. It's a bit strange, especially when you study John Calvin life he was extremely legalistic and expected others to believe as he did.

[@nathanoppy]

Former reformed baptist here. I’m catholic now and it feels so good to have the sacraments in my life. Catholic Church is the true church of christ

[@christophlindinger2267]

Imagine going into a pre school with 5 year olds and you have to explain to them limited atonement... Or explain it to a mother holding her new born that it has already been decided unconditionally if the baby will end up in heaven or hell... More likely the latter...

[@hopejordanguerrero7554]

Exactly. I knew one youth leader when I was Protestant who said that to my brother about my newly born niece, that she is not yet saved and should be treated accordingly, i.e., harsh treatment until old enough to "accept Christ" on her own.

[@johnsmit5999]

I can't imagine teaching that there is a different fate for baptized babies vs unbaptized babies.

[@christophlindinger2267]

@@johnsmit5999 www.catholic.com/qa/whither-unbaptized-infants-at-death

[@abelj5145]

@@johnsmit5999 We don't teach that there is. God is not bound to the Sacraments, He created them. We can have assurance but not certainty. Assurance because He is just and loving and stands for those who cannot stand for themselves.

[@jonfeuerborn5859]

I would think it would go without saying, but the rightness of a doctrine isn't determined by how well it is received. How you feel about limited atonement matters not.

[@fsnicolas]

Hey, thanks for praying for me today, Trent. ;)

[@DanielFernandez-jv7jx]

I've never understood the attraction of Calvinism. It seems like a dreary and tortured theology. My best guess is that most Presbyterians, Reformed Churches and other children of Mr Calvin don't really understand the fine print. If they did, they'd be out of there.

[@m4641]

The one point they adhere to is the P. My wife, who grew up in the Methodist church devoutly, has been indoctrinated into OSAS. Ugh...

[@Emper0rH0rde]

It is extremely attractive people who like being right for the sake of being right.

[@floridaman318]

@@Emper0rH0rde literally this

[@gch8810]

It is attractive to people who see themselves as intellectual.

[@williamroberts3719]

@@Emper0rH0rde sorry to reply to an old comment but you are so right. People who subscribe to these ideas HAVE to be right all the time. To say “I don’t know” would break them.

[@dannytracey9044]

Thanks for the video. Only yesterday did I actually look to see what the 5 points of calvinism are so it was great timing that this video was realised today

[@TheChunkyCrusader]

"For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting." John 3:16 DRC 1752 God loved THE WORLD, not just the elect to give his only Son.

[@TheChunkyCrusader]

@Super Genius no, you don't even no the content which I cited it. Try again

[@TheChunkyCrusader]

@ZachCICM that's also called isogesis

[@jackmorgan8931]

Hey, Kyle.... Oh, you made me think of something I hadn't thought about in a long, long time: For whom did Jesus die? (1) All of the sins of all of the people? (2) Some of the sins of some of the people? (3) Some of the sins of all of the people? (4) All of the sins of some of the people? And then you simply answer the questions: If #1 is true, then everyone is saved because unbelief is a sin. If #2 is true, then no one is saved. If #3 is true, then again, no one is saved. So logically (!), that leave #4, Calvinism, being “true”. Kyle, stay safe and be well.

[@jackmorgan8931]

@ZachCICM I think the argument goes more like this: The Bible refers to "people" in exactly two ways: In the OT it is "Jews and Gentiles". In the NT is the "saved/elect versus, well, the "unsaved," simply everybody else. And because the NT was the beginning of the "good news" that salvation was now not for Jews only but also for Gentiles, i.e., it, God's grace and forgiveness, was now for the "world" and that "whosever believeth," i.e., Jew or Gentile, would be saved. Ah, but this is stuff I've not thought about for a long, long time....

[@TheChunkyCrusader]

​@@jackmorgan8931 *If #1 is true, then everyone is saved because unbelief is a sin.* We agree that Jesus' sacrifice is sufficient to pay for all sins as evident by your agreement on #4 which shares that in common with #1. It is clear that "wills everyone to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth." 1 Timothy 2:4 NABRE. wills = desires This is made clear as we see in the next two verses, St. Paul states "For there is one God. There is also one mediator between God and the human race, Christ Jesus, himself human, who gave himself as ransom for all." 1 Tim 2:5-6 NABRE. It is clear that God desires everyone to be saved in light of the fact that his only-begotten Son gave himself as ransom for all. Now whether the graces are efficacious (put into effect) to everyone is the real question. The answer is no because then no one would be in hell.

[@megaloschemos9113]

If God predestined some people to hell before they were born. Then why would those people be judged before the throne of God for their deeds, if their actions were predetermined? Also with Calvinism, it takes the beauty and joy out of the gospel message. That scripture in 1 John is straightforward.

[@ToxicallyMasculinelol]

Calvinism is definitely wrong about this, but we should be careful with this line of reasoning, especially when using words like predestination and predetermination. Virtually all Christian denominations believe in predestination. This is a pretty highbrow idea so of course you can find individual Christians who don't realize it's a core doctrine, haven't thought about it much, and don't like what it implies at first glance, so think it's silly. Even many Catholics are unaware of predestination. Predestination is not the same as predetermination, though. We have free will, but that doesn't stop God from knowing exactly what we're gonna end up doing. This can be a stumbling block for atheists since they might interpret free will as the freedom to do something other than what God has foreseen. I had that problem, personally. Just couldn't wrap my mind around it for a long time. Sam Harris also commits a variation on this error, just replacing God with the deterministic universe. The problem with Calvinism arises when you combine all these separate misinterpretations to yield a picture of salvation that basically rejects the traditional "God anticipates your free actions" view by implying that people God "intended" to save cannot choose not to be saved, that God doesn't merely foresee that some people will freely turn away from him, but actually _intends_ that some people will freely turn away, and that a person can't choose to resist grace. So this doctrine basically mixes up predestination and predetermination by conflating God's omniscience with God's intent. Another way of phrasing it is that many Calvinist theologians struggle to see how God could 1) want all to be saved, 2) foresee the actions of all people, 3) have complete control over the universe, and 4) still choose to arrange things in such a way that many people would choose to turn away from him. So for them it logically follows that God must not want all to be saved, since they're not willing to accept that God arranged things incorrectly or that God isn't actually omnipotent or omniscient. So they have to posit that God doesn't want all to be saved. A major problem there is that the plain reading of scripture then becomes subservient to their theology. They have to weasel in eisegesis in order to sustain this position. Which in and of itself refutes the doctrine of sola scriptura, since it shows that scripture often does not sufficiently speak for itself. But yeah, they fell into this logic hole by engaging in an atheistic style of thinking about the moral value of God's actions, sort of a variation on the problem of evil. It's really the same kind of thinking I was stuck in when I couldn't imagine how something called "free will" could exist if God could perfectly anticipate every action: It seems like for us to be truly free, we must be free to surprise God. The problem is that it inevitably leads to conflating foresight with predetermination. In fact, it basically logically follows that omniscience equals omnipotence. That if any given mind knows the future perfectly, that means no other mind in the universe is free to contradict the omniscient mind. And that leads to one of two conclusions: 1) the omniscient mind controls and indeed predetermines every single event; or 2) no mind has any control whatsoever, the omniscient mind is purely an observer - the other minds are unable to contradict the deterministic "plan" of the universe, but that "plan" wasn't created by the omniscient mind. This 2nd conclusion is one of the contributing factors to deism in early modern Europe. So, evidently you wind up with either total predetermination or total detachment. But this all hinges on a mistaken formulation of free will, i.e., that free agents should be able to surprise God. Just because we act freely, doesn't mean we could ever act in a way that God does not foresee. God is completely outside of time in the first place. God presumably perceives every moment of time simultaneously, so he's never considering my thoughts at this moment apart from the context of my actions an hour, a day, a week, or a year from now. Whatever his perception of me is, it always includes my entire history. If we were ever going to make a choice that contradicts God's expectations, then God surely would have anticipated us trying to surprise him. This just leads to an infinite regress of the kind of behavior colloquially known as "reverse psychology." In other words, I can try to do something other than what God expects, but God expects me to do that. So I can try to do something other than something other than what God expects, but God will have anticipated that as well. Unfortunately the realities of human language can make this confusing. We just struggle not to speak about things in tensed language. It's hard to talk about the concept of predestination or foresight without using the language of past, present, and future. It's not that God predicted my behavior "before" I did it. It's that God sees everything from his omnipotent, eternal perspective, and could intervene in anything if he chooses. So when God anticipates what I'm going to do, he's not making a prediction at 4:00 PM which I can then contradict and thereby force him to change his prediction at 5:00 PM. His thought is not moment to moment like ours. When he makes a prediction, that prediction is final. That doesn't mean he caused it, of course. It just means that no amount of trying to trick God would wind up contradicting his prediction, because he foresees my efforts to contradict him, he knows where they finally lead. For example: if I'm going to make new plans for what to do this weekend and change my plans twice in order to confuse God, then he's not going to make a prediction based on my thoughts when I set my plans the 1st time. He's going to make a prediction based on the sum of all time, meaning my final change of plans is what he expects, because those are my "canonical" plans. They are the plans I eventually enact in the future of the real world, and since he can see the future of the real world, he knows I am going to enact the 3rd set of plans, not the other temporary plans. Ultimately you can only sustain the predetermination premise through insane hubris or lack of imagination - either by supposing any mind to be on a par with God's, or by struggling to comprehend what an eternal, omniscient being's comprehension might be like, and using false heuristics based on human consciousness in order to describe the mind of God. So basically I would say the difficulties people have with this arise from the innate difficulty of imagining how we can have freedom of the will without the special freedom to surprise God. From that mistaken understanding of what constitutes freedom: because we already know via scripture that we can't surprise God, it follows that we don't truly have freedom of will. That turns the doctrine of predestination into a doctrine of predetermination, which implies that our failure to reach heaven would be 100% God's fault. And therefore, God must _want_ some of us not to be saved, and presumably he must have some mysterious but morally sufficient reasons for wanting such a repugnant thing. Of course, you'll find some people giving radically different justifications for this doctrine, but in my opinion these are post hoc rationalizations, not explanations for where the doctrine actually came from. What I'm suggesting here is an aetiology of a pathological idea. What some Calvinist theologians propose is instead a justification for why some hypothetical person might find the idea compelling or supported by scripture - not an explanation for why the founders of their particular school of thought originally accepted the idea. Many are gonna believe it either way because they already inherited it, they didn't choose it and weren't rationally convinced of it. But they inherited the idea from people who took it on board because they rationally backed themselves into a corner, ultimately due to mistaken premises about freedom. That's why it goes hand in hand with mistaken beliefs like total depravity, irresistible grace and perseverance. All three are unjustified philosophical restrictions on man's freedom of the will.

[@shamuscrawford]

Calvinism teaches exactly what some Catholics believe on this issue. Thomists believe that God decreed before the foundation of the world who would receive the grace to persevere until the end and who would not receive this grace before he considers their merit and demerits. However God damns on the basis of the demerits of the nonelect. That's also what the Westminister confession teaches.

[@pgpython]

This is a terrible misunderstanding.. Predestination is biblical, there is several bible passages that point to it being so and every major Christian denomation has some aspect of it. Just because you don't understand how it works doesn't make it not so. We know it has to be true because then God would not be ultimately under control. God couldn't plan to save mankind through Jesus from Adam if he didn't plan that all the people up to jesus being born, it would just be chance. But just because certain events has preordained to happen doesn't mean free will doesn't matter. No far from it we are still active participants in the decision. Mary actively chose to give birth to Jesus even though God preordained it so. A person who rejects God is actively choosing to rebel against God even though God chose before not to rescue them. It's that choice to rescue someone that is the predestination part. God does so by changing peoples heart. I am powerless to change my own. ‭Ezekiel 36:25-28 NKJV‬ [25] Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. [26] I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. [27] I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them. [28] Then you shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; you shall be My people, and I will be your God. bible.com/bible/114/ezk.36.25-28.NKJV

[@jonathansoko1085]

Even as a catholic, its obvious not everyone goes to heaven

[@zarganon9594]

Yes but not by the choice of God

[@MainframeSupertasker]

@@zarganon9594 I'm a 0.5 point calvinist, but why has God no choice? He loved us first.

[@masterchief8179]

@@MainframeSupertasker He simply said God do not choose to send anyone to hell. As Catholics we say: if one is saved, that’s God merit; if one is condemned, that his own fault. The very structure of this theological affirmation makes implicitly absurd the theory of predestination entailed in all Protestant confessions that deny human free will and cooperation with God’s grace in order to grow in righteousness and sanctification, let alone the obnoxious teaching of double predestination.

[@MainframeSupertasker]

@@masterchief8179 Absolutely I agree. It just seemed to be that God didn't choose him to be saved.

[@jotunman627]

"If men only know what awaits them in eternity they would do everything in their power to change their lives." St Jacinta of Fatima. The seven sacraments strengthens us as we live our life. They come in all stages of our life, from birth, midlife, family, (Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Penance, Matrimony) until we die (anointing of the sick).....without divine grace from them, we will be as flimsy as raft in the face of the hurricane, the onslaught of Satan is everyday and everywhere in the secular world.

[@TKK0812]

Cue the calvinists saying "Well His prescriptive will says He wants all to be saved, but His decreed will is different". You can't reason with those who have cast it off.

[@EricA-xd9fn]

Go easy on them. We play the same game with God's "Ordaining" and "Permitting" Will(s). It comes down to semantics and how Calvinism built their "work around" to the quandary: How does a "loving" God create beings He foreknows will burn in Hell for eternity?

[@TKK0812]

@@EricA-xd9fn It's not a game, it's what the Bible teaches vs. what it doesn't. God ordaining and permitting can be demonstrated to work in tandem, however His prescriptive and decreed will actually work against one another under calvinism and make God seem duplicitous. The answer to your last question is actually very simple. Foreknowledge is not causative. I purposely chose to "create" children with my wife knowing fully that they would sin and do wrong and perhaps even evil things, but we don't cause them to do so.

[@duckymomo7935]

Because he is just and designed them for that very purpose. The potter's clay analogy is also used in the bible. Romans 9 says It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use? What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath-prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory- even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? As he says in Hosea:“I will call them ‘my people’ who are not my people; and I will call her ‘beloved’ who is not beloved,”

[@EricA-xd9fn]

@@TKK0812 Your reply still begs the question: If you *knew* *surely* that your offspring would burn for *eternity* in Hell, would you procreate irregardless? Think how perverse that actually sounds. Cut the Calvinists some slack. Philippians 2:12-13 and all.

[@TKK0812]

@@duckymomo7935 Yeah I'm not going to debate Romans 9 in KZbin comments, but just to say that simply copying and pasting a passage of scripture is not an argument.

[@verum-in-omnibus1035]

Total depravity, that describes the Calvinist religion very well. Great video.

[@mr.molina8008]

Good job.. I love all your comments btw

[@radiotvteapee2335]

I will steal that with due credit, very good mama bear!

[@frankperrella1202]

I love when Trent Horn & Tim Staples debated That Calvinist James White good Debates Trent Horn & Tim Staples & other Catholic apologist beat Calvinist James White! 🗝️🗝️🙏🛐😇⚔️🛡️📖⛪💯 Catholic 🛐

[@frankperrella1202]

@Super Genius He's a Goof he looses all his Debates & his Sister is Catholic brother what's that tell you?? 📖🙏😇⚔️🛡️🗝️🗝️🛐💯 Catholic

[@frankperrella1202]

@Super Genius Google About the Megachurches Said the Protest is over Guys like Pat Robertson Lol Prostestants are losing people! People want the Sacraments Like in the Catholic church & Eastern Orthodox the Original Church!!

[@peterlee4753]

In Calvinism God must have decreed that Adam would sin. And then picked a few to save. And left the rest to be damned. All for some secret reason we don’t know, and must presume it ultimately brings God more glory. It is Gnosticism. Beyond error. Catholic Church right to anathematise it.

[@Justas399]

Many will be damned. God has not done away hell.

[@basicin4mationvlog293]

That's why Trent said when the Calvinist says that the Catholic God is a tough God Trent says that the Calvinist god is a psychopath. 😆

[@fredharvey2720]

If the grace of God is enough, why do we have to use manmade things like rosaries and scapulars?

[@peterlee4753]

@@fredharvey2720 we don’t need those things. They are helpful to our prayers but not essential to our salvation, which is by grace.

[@fredharvey2720]

@@peterlee4753 You mean by grace plus works since you believe that violating the law will put people into hell for such things as masturbation. Passages including but not limited to Ephesians 2:4-10 are very clear that works have NO play in salvation and that it's by faith.

[@nickdon]

`If irresistible grace is what James White believes then why he is not a catholic?

[@andresbenavides1768]

Dear brother Tren. I'm not a Catholic but I totally agree with you. Calvinism is a nightmare that is destroying many people`s lives and making them depart from the faith. Greetings from Ecuador.

[@nickdon]

James White made me a catholic!

[@jonathansoko1085]

God did, not james white.

[@fredharvey2720]

So you didn't research both sides and read. Typical.

[@jonathansoko1085]

@@fredharvey2720 Well i did. Ive been on both sides... ive been in a cult aswell so ive done my share of studying and i ended up home, a catholic. But no man made me, James is infuriating at times but i wouldnt make that decision because of him. I also dont misrepresent Calvinists and it even irritates me when my brothers do it.

[@fredharvey2720]

@@jonathansoko1085 Yeah I was in a cult - New Age - from about age 17 to 25. I'm now 51 and a Christian.

[@TravisKirchem-gd4wy]

I'm a Protestant heavily steep in Calvinism, but recently, I have started noticing these flaws. Although i agree wholeheartedly with the logic Trent is explaining, there is one verse that seems to point to limited atonement. Romans 9:11-13 speaks about God electing Jacob over Esau "though they were not yet born and had done nothing good or bad." Then, Paul quotes Malachi, as it is written," Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." Calvinist typically say that this doesn't seem fair, but, as Paul goes on to say in the next section of chapter 9, "who are you, oh man, to to answer back to God?"

[@R01202]

If you have spent any significant amount of time with Calvinists, you will notice that their god of narrow, limited love leads to narrow, limited love in them.

[@JonineBlackshear]

The meanest “kind” people I know.

[@txdoubletap8509]

Yesterday I was on an Atheist Channel and they threw out a stat that If Christ came down to earth to reveal himself to an Atheist, would you then believe. The answer given, was 85% still wouldn't believe. In the second coming God will get a 100% of the elect no matter what your denomination, God will get them. I just can't see why people resist limited atonement. Both thieves on the cross had the same amount time, yet the father said to one and one only today you will be with me in paradise. Matthew 16:17 And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.

[@hopejordanguerrero7554]

In the end, to remain Protestant one must become Calvinist, i.e., to believe that God deliberately chose people to be damned BEFORE THEY WERE EVEN BORN and caused these same people to be so sinful that they merit damnation. I personally know people who actually believe this, that there is nothing wrong for God to create a group of people whose only purpose is to be damned to hell, and are so thankful that they are not in that group and have no pity AT ALL for those God created to be damned. In the end, it was to get away from these Calvinists and those influenced by them (even those who identify as "Arminian" and yet hold to many Calvinistic premises) that I and my wife with my daughter became Catholic.

[@hopejordanguerrero7554]

Those people I knew, those so proud of their belief in Limited Atonement, strangely find it a "comfortable doctrine", because they are spared from any guilt in being unfair to those they deem reprobates, they are free to hate reprobates, and there is no sin in doing harm, or at least thinking harm against the reprobates.

[@hopejordanguerrero7554]

@Brian Farley that's what I said, and this guy tells me, "The wisdom of God looks like foolishness to men." I just had to get away from such psychopathic theology.

[@Navii-05]

Hello. So, what I want to do with this message is to simply show what the Gospel is. I am not trying to force my belief down people's throats. It's your choice whether you want to accept it. So, a question: Do you think you are a good person? If so, have you ever stolen anything, lied, looked lustfully, watched adult material? All of those are sins and anyone who sinned is not good(on God´s standard). You, I and most( most because babies don't sin, and maybe specifically mentally Ill people) purely human beings have violated God's moral law. Since God is just, He can not let sin go just like that. So is there any hope? Yes, there is! Out of love and mercy, God became a human being, Jesus Christ. Jesus lived a sinless life and finally died on the cross to bear the punishment we deserve, we deserve to be punished because we have sinned. The reason why blood must be spilled for remission of sins is because the life of the flesh is in the blood, in the Old Testament Jews sacrificed animals for sins but the sacrifice of animals were enough for remission of some sins, not all. It wasn't infinite, unlike Jesus's. Jesus is the Lamb of God, the ultimate sacrifice for sins which is enough for all sins that have been done, are done and will be done. The Old Testament sacrifice of animals, the spilled blood of those animals could cleanse people from some sins but not ALL, unlike Jesus's. He was buried and rose again. His resurrection proved that His death was enough to pay our penalty, the penalty for our sins.Jesus paid our penalty and in order to accept the free gift of salvation from God, we must trust in Jesus's spilled Blood, His finished work on the Cross for our salvation. And then your sins will be forgiven because of what Christ did, you will be saved. See: Romans 3:10, Romans 3:23, Romans 5:12, Romans 6:23, Romans 5:8-9, Romans 10:9-10, Ephesians 2:8-9, John 3:16, Leviticus 17:11, Ephesians 1:7, Colossians 1:20, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4. kzbin.info/www/bejne/opPFZautjs9kb8k Evidence for God´s existence: Kalam cosmological argument, Contigency argument, Modal ontological argument. Regarding Christianity, check out InspiringPhilosophy´s videos about the Ressurection of Jesus and the reliability of the New Testament. Together, they show good evidence that Christianity is true.

[@Navii-05]

@Brian Farley First of all, I am not a Calvinist, second of all: www.gotquestions.org/good-works-salvation.html, www.gotquestions.org/Christian-lose-salvation.html

[@hopejordanguerrero7554]

@@Navii-05 the fact that you believe that a Christian cannot lose one's salvation makes you a Calvinist, whether you acknowledge that or not.

[@insiderevolverstudios]

Great, teaching, I currently fellowship at a Calvanist Church, but realized I am not a Calvanist, I lean more towards Molonist, but not fully there either....have spent years deconstructing my percieved biblical understandings amd now in the process of just letting the scripture say what it has to say, and not jam it into a human concept/theological view of scripture.

[@Jesus_is_Lord-]

I'm an ex-catholic and I love listening to Trent Horn. Keep it up brother! God bless!

[@computationaltheist7267]

What made you leave the Catholic Church?

[@lostcharge]

The light is always on. You're welcome to come home.

[@Jesus_is_Lord-]

@@lostcharge I am home. At home with Jesus Christ :)

[@Jesus_is_Lord-]

@@computationaltheist7267 It was the same moment of my conversion. They call it being "born again". There are catholic teachings that I cannot find in the Bible, like How Mary was given power to become queen over all things. That's just hard to swallow.

[@MozwGamer]

Quite cringe. Get cathleek m8.

[@TruePT]

Love your vids man! Very helpful and informative!😊

[@zekdom]

3:18 , 3:39 - Consistency of Calvinism as opposed to certain Protestants who only accept Once Saved, Always Saved. 6:39 - Matthew 18 8:30 - 1 Timothy 2:2-4 12:50 - 1 John 2:2 13:10 and 14:10 - 1 John 5:19 14:35 - Addressing passages that could be interpreted in light of limited atonement 14:57 - 1 Timothy 2:6 15:10 - Matthew 20:28 Are “many” and “all” mutually exclusive terms? 15:58 - Galatians 2:20 16:27 - 1 Timothy 4:9-10

[@zekdom]

@YAJUN YUAN Hey you, it’s been a while! How have you been? By the way, I think I came across your comments on one of Greg Stafford’s videos about the Trinity. I think he replied to you, but your comments were gone. (Deleted or removed by KZbin’s algorithm, perhaps?)

[@zekdom]

@YAJUN YUAN That’s good. Heh :;) So listen, I’ve been watching/reading Sam Shamoun’s material concerning the Trinity. He’s **super** helpful because he’s actually intimate with anti-trinitarian arguments. I’ve learned quite a bit from him. In particular, his responses to Greg Stafford. For example, how Stafford’s response to a trinitarian take on John 17:3 completely backfires when you go back to John 1:9. If you’re trinitarian, you should hop over to Sam’s videos some time.

[@zekdom]

@YAJUN YUAN I’m not a fan of the insults either. Not only because insulting isn’t my style, but it comes across as comedy and theatre. Like, he gets on a roll, then derails his momentum by laying it thick. Even so, his exegesis is detailed and most valuable.

[@davidochiengbuoga7165]

As a Calvinist am persuaded that Christ died for me according to the promise of God.God was pleased to reveal Himself through Jesus Christ to me His elect (Galatians 1:15-18) God is revealing Himself to anyone He wills but not to all (Romans 10:20)

[@CatholicChristian51]

Wrong, read the bible

[@iggyantioch]

Are you sure you belong to the elect?

[@davidochiengbuoga7165]

@@iggyantioch What makes you think am not?

[@iggyantioch]

Are you saved? Re of the elect

[@davidochiengbuoga7165]

@@iggyantioch Saved and safe in the hand of Jesus Christ

[@s_hrndz0119]

John Calvin himself didn’t even believe in Limited Atonement.

[@vanessagarcia7515]

Trent I can’t thank you enough for continuing to educate this cradle but ignorant Catholic. Thanks to your videos and those of other Catholic apologists I have grown deeper in my faith .

[@salud1541]

Nice channel name 😉

[@janstaniszewski536]

Yesterday I watched Redeemed Zoomer's defense of Calvinist view on predestination, and that's exactly what came to my mind. The whole "election" thing, essentially makes Christ's sacrifice obsolete.

[@michaelalexander3001]

I keep wanting to rage against the TULIP, but I know it won't do any good. All we can do is pray like it says in Timothy.

[@michaelalexander3001]

@Super Genius God bless you.

[@robertgillis6245]

I do not remember how I started praying this way, but besides praying for the United States and people part of The United States Government, I as GOD To Bless all world leaders and public officials that they base their decisions by his will.

[@gabrielrenfro4417]

Calvinism: God has the power to save all people, but He prefers to damn many (if not most) people to hell. Why do people end up in hell? Because that is the way that God prefers it. The place to start with a Calvinist is the character of God.

[@hopejordanguerrero7554]

Exactly, they say that God damns people before they were born "out of God's good pleasure", they have no problem with God being a sadist.

[@l21n18]

I would pushback on the consistency argument in sone ways, yes it’s a consistent system in its formulation but the conclusions bring up quite a few logical difficulties. Especially in the higher forms of Calvinism

[@Nick-rb1dc]

Correct. To say Calvinism is logically consistent is not true when you start to scratch the surface. One glaring example is that just as a Calvinist cannot know if Jesus died for you, by the same logic they cannot actually know if Jesus died for the Calvinist himself. The Calvinist can only presume Jesus died for himself, and thus the Calvinist doesn't actually even have Assurance. Also, the Calvinist speaks of "perseverance," which is a term referring to a marathon and some day crossing the finish line, but this idea makes no sense if you're automatically saved once and for all through the death of Jesus. There's nothing to logically persevere in when salvation isn't depending on your actions!

[@tonyu5985]

I wonder why John Calvin started his own religion.

[@GabrielPantaleon858]

Pride

[@fredharvey2720]

Who said he did?

[@nickspitzley8539]

Im a calvinist and the answer is, are you a sinner who is weary and heavy laden with your sin? Do you see yourself as a helpless sinner. Do you know you need the righteousness of Jesus! Then Jesus has died for you, go to him.

[@Tmauk56]

Very convincing. Thank you for this video! I'm curious to hear your thoughts. I've heard Calvinists, on this topic, ask the question something like "Can God fail?" implying that if Christ died for the unsaved, then He failed to some degree. What are your thoughts on this? Love the channel, and thanks for the content!

[@chezjowy8596]

Christ died for your salvation, do you choose to accept it? A no doesn't relate to God failing.

[@gregorybarrett4998]

Hi, Trevor. Thanks for your comment, and for your question. It's good to see people engage with meaningful questions. In the first place, I will not satisfy you on the question you raise, so feel free to move on right here. This is an involved question, and proper treatment of it involves many, and many layers of, consideration. It has reference to the whole of theological reflection on the whole of revelation, so it is not surprising that people have struggled with it. Beyond that, while human minds are ordered to the whole of truth, they are finite and cannot know, much less understand, even the whole of what has come to be known in the sum of human knowledge. A fortiori, it is not to be expected that human minds will understand well matters which involve the whole of, and interaction among the elements of, revelation. A few pieces which have a bearing on the question constitute the remainder of my discussion. First and foremost, God is love, so everything He does is an expression of that love and has nothing so much as vaguely resembling a deficiency of love. Secondly, what God loves is the true and perfect good which is Himself. It is because each element of and the whole of His creation reflects and in some cases (from our perspective) can come still more to reflect His own goodness that He loves His creation, for He loves in them what He loves in Himself. Thirdly, it is by design that there are degrees of goodness in creation, so that the various kinds and degrees of goodness in creation can reflect, as fully as possible in a finite creation, the various senses in which goodness is present in God. Fourthly, among the elements of goodness in God which is reflected in creation is freedom to choose what need not have been so. Accordingly, we see the ability to choose operative in living created beings. Fifthly, angels and men are distinct from all other living created beings, for they, unlike all other living created beings, have joined to their natural end, to which all tend and which most achieve, a supernatural end which does not perfectly correspond to their natural end, and which depends on their conscious and active choice to pursue this supernatural end even in preference to their natural end, and so there is no expectation that all, or most, will attain their supernatural end. There is of course much more to say that deserves to be said, but I thought that this could contribute to a better and more peaceful appreciation of God's work in salvation. I hope it helps.

[@MichaelWilson-ky3pp]

Trevor, God offers to all men sufficient grace to save their souls; He also leaves men free to accept or reject this grace. God wills the salvation of all men and even sent His Son to die on the Cross in order to be able to redeem all men.

[@Tmauk56]

@@chezjowy8596 A very good point. Free will is key, for sure.

[@Nick-rb1dc]

@@Tmauk56 here's the shortfall with Trent's video: it missed the fact that Cross/Atonement is being defined very different by Catholics and Protestants. Catholics follow the Biblical definition of Atonement, whereas Protestants invented a man made definition called Penal Substitution. Under the Penal Substitution model, Limited Atonement is a required conclusion, since if Jesus died for you, then He already took your punishment and thus you can never be held responsible for your sins since they were already paid. God cannot punish the same sin twice. So to effectively address the Calvinist, you must go to the level of defining terms per the Bible.

[@txdoubletap8509]

Jesus came to earth in human form. At this time, and at this time to me this is an example of limited atonement. John 1.10-12 (He came unto his own....) He did all the miracles, what else could he have done etc.. Is this not an example of limited atonement? When he comes again, in the digital age where every one has a digital camera it will be undeniable, but that is not a promise that all will believe + 1000yrs What more do you want?? Atonement is a responsibility not a badge of honor to be prideful about Luke 12:48 (To whom much is given ....)

[@augustinberishaj]

“The problem with Calvin is that he will not admit God loves us all!” -St. Robert Bellarmine-

[@Justas399]

The problem with Bellarmine is he doesn’t understand Scripture

[@lonelyberg1808]

I like St Bellarmine, good apologist

[@augustinberishaj]

@@Justas399 You mean the Scriptures the Catholic Church compiled and which heretics tried to distort by removing books and adding words?! If you think that scripture teaches that one is forever destined to hell and he CANNOT do anything to change it, then that leads us to an evil God which creates people but only for sending them eventually to eternity of pains! This certainly is not God who is LOVE! Even thinking of this is an offense, not to mention actually living by these beliefs!!!

[@Justas399]

@@augustinberishaj what do you make of this? What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? - Romans 9:22

[@michaelibach9063]

@@Justas399 sounds like a hypothetical question, not a declaration of truth

[@graydomn]

The irony is that Calvin didn't teach limited atonement. The five points came long after Calvin's death. This is conceded by the author having to deal with Calvin in "From Heaven He Came and Sought Her: Definite Atonement in Historical, Biblical, Theological, and Pastoral Perspective," which is a pretty good survey of the pro-limited atonement arguments.

[@OrigenisAdamantios]

“LIMITED ATONEMENT” is infernalism!! - 1 Corinthians 15:28 - “And, when all things have been subordinated to him, then will the Son himself also be subordinated to the one who has subordinated all things to him, so that God may be all in all.”

[@fredharvey2720]

Stick to fasting because cherry picking one verse isn't an argument.

[@OrigenisAdamantios]

@@fredharvey2720 “If God is the good creator of all, he must also be the savior of all, without fail, who brings to himself all he has made, including all rational wills, and only thus returns to himself in all that goes forth from him. ”

[@fredharvey2720]

@@OrigenisAdamantios Even if people don't want it?

[@Justas399]

God may desire all to be saved but not all will be saved because hell is still the final destination for sinners who reject Christ.

[@fredharvey2720]

Not according to Catholics. You have to die in "a state of grace," so if you masturbated without repenting, you're done for eternity, to be boiled forever for touching your pee-pee.

[@fatimatriumphs]

God predestined you to have free will and there is nothing you can do about it.

[@Wgaither1]

Why doesn’t a baby have free will to choose if he or she wants to be Catholic or not? The parents decide for the infant, no free will

[@fatimatriumphs]

@@Wgaither1 That’s like saying a baby can’t sense anything because the memory isn’t fully developed. A baby has free will; just because that faculty of the soul isn’t fully developed doesn’t mean that it’s not there.

[@roisinpatriciagaffney4087]

@@fatimatriumphs Hello, we were created with a freewill to cooperate with God's grace, or to follow our own will.

[@fatimatriumphs]

@@roisinpatriciagaffney4087 darn right we were!

[@roisinpatriciagaffney4087]

@@fatimatriumphs When i say following our own will l mean we ignore God and His saving grace.

[@timkooper]

Hell will be terrible because the damned will know christ died for their sins but they denied it. Simple as that. They can only blame themself this is how hell works. The conscience will naw eternally. Calvanism destroyed.

[@alexjurado6029]

Atheists understand Scripture better than Calvinists do. Lol.

[@T_frog1]

Steven Anderson understands the Bible better than Calvinists do

[@alexjurado6029]

@@T_frog1 now that’s a very sad thing for Calvinists 😬😂

[@isaacleillhikar4566]

You might find this strange, but I beleive the five points of Calvinism, sort of, but I agree with what you're talking about too. It seems the most confusion comes when they missunderstand someone not bieng saved as God would have wanted, means he couldn't get what he wants. It doesnt mean that. God can be sad about things, we know that. Things can happen against his will (Calvinists talk about two sense of his will to explain that, I understand).

[@catholiccrusaderdeusvult6205]

First

[@takmaps]

:D Gbu bro

[@catholiccrusaderdeusvult6205]

@@takmaps you to brother , Gby and your family

[@EricA-xd9fn]

Interesting commentary. Catholics also navigate the same friction in our theology. Note the words consecrating the wine into Blood, "the Blood of the new and eternal covenant, which will be poured out for you and for *MANY* for the forgiveness of sins" As much as liberal Catholics want it to say "All", they can't. Because: A) That's not what Jesus said & B) Through free-will, we can obstinately refuse God's Grace.

[@intedominesperavi6036]

The "Many" I think refers to the outcome, and the "all" to God's intention. Edit: I should have worded it better - the "all" refers to what God has already provided, *and* his desire. At the Day of Judgement it really won't be God who is to blame.

[@EricA-xd9fn]

@@intedominesperavi6036 Well said, but it's the same quandary Calvinism wrestles with: 'So you're saying God's Grace is "resistible" and (potentially) "ineffective"? ' Let's build a theology that reconciles this apparent contradiction (sez Calvin).

[@intedominesperavi6036]

@@EricA-xd9fn Yes, God's Grace is resistible. God really made our will free. If someone thinks that this somehow makes it ineffective, that just doesn't follow. It really can be both, resistible and effective. The relationship between Grace and Man's will is very difficult, and sometimes seems contradictory - but so is the relationship between God and his fallen man. :)

[@EthanDolan1274]

This mainly doesn't consider the distinction between actuality and potentiality. He dies and gives the potentiality of salvation to all (if all were to believe) but the actuality of salvation is applied to those who believe. Now, being more Catholic in my theology at this point (probably coming out of Calvinism) I still see it as the Lord who gives someone the grace to desire salvation, and then the grace to act upon it, and the grace to perservere to the end. So in one way Jesus dies for all (that all may be saved all believed and perservere) but he died more particularly for his elect, knowing beforehand that they would perservere because he is the one who softens the heart and gives the grace of them to do so. It's 100% God and 100% man. If someone is not saved in the end, God decided to let them go the way they chose which is just on his part (nobody is deserving of salvation) and the person deserved this condemnation. If the person believes and continues to believe, it is only by the grace of God working and moving our efforts.

[@EricA-xd9fn]

@@EthanDolan1274 You get it. But Calvinists (among many others) do not. And don't get me started on the "once saved >>> always saved" theology. I just know many well-intentioned Calvinists, and it's too easy to bag on their "predestination" theology...but it's actually an honest conundrum.

[@mikeryan3701]

I have watched many videos of Catholic versus Protestant debates. I have watched many videos which explain why Catholics are correct and Protestants are wrong. But, given the deep divisions within Protestantism, I began to wonder if there are videos of Protestant versus Protestant debates or Protestants explaining why they are correct and other Protestants are wrong. And I discovered that there are. For example, I discovered a video of Norman Geisler explaining why he disagrees with 5-point Calvinism. I even discovered a debate (on Calvinism) between James White and Mike Winger. I also discovered a video of an ex-Calvinist (now Baptist) giving his testimony of how he was converted. Especially interesting in relation to this particular talk by Trent Horn is the following comment somebody wrote under the testimony video. The Baptist church I used to attend went from non-Calvinist to Calvinist in 4 years time. The Elders turned to Calvinism and hired a 5-point Calvinist pastor when the current pastor moved on to other ministries. In addition most of the witnessing team I led became Calvinistic as well. I had a friend on the team who turned into a Calvinist and I asked him, "Do you tell a sinner Christ died for them and that God loves them?" He said, "No, I wouldn't want to give that person a false hope." On another occasion I was witnessing to a guard in front of a building for about 45 minutes. When the rest of the team found me one of them told the guy I was talking to "If you are going to repent God must do it!". I immediately ended the witnessing encounter and gave the guy a gospel tract. I did that because I spent 45 minutes trying to tell him to repent and one of my other Calvinist friends told him God must cause him to repent. I think Calvinism is more damaging than we realize and I am convinced the Lord is angry when someone says "Christ, you didn't die for this person" or when Christ wants someone to repent, but someone else tells them, "Nah, no you don't."

[@ServusChristi777]

St Thomas Aquinas agrees with Limited Atonement and Unconditional Election (Summa Theologica, Part 1, Question 23)

[@Kevin5279]

Hi Trent, even though this is unrelated but can you answer this objection on the Actus Purus? Since God created the universe then doesn't that mean that he had the POTENTIAL to create the universe and only ACTUALIZED it when he finally created it? How can you explain this using an Actus Purus background. Thanks

[@jake6132]

A friend of mine who is a Calvinist uses John 10:27-28 as a proof text for the unconditional elect. The reasoning is that since Jesus is God and made the ultimate sacrifice, this means that with those who are in the Father's hands cannot be plucked out because God can't fail. I'd like to hear a some about who Jesus is talking about in this verse and how it doesn't prove the unconditional elect.

[@jenex5608]

I'm a protestant and I disagree with calvinism wholeheartedly

[@lawrencestanley8989]

Why would an evangelist tell someone that Jesus died for them? We don't see Jesus or the Apostles presenting the gospel that way. The gospel is the story of how Jesus came to "save His people from their sins" (Matthew 1:21), and it is a command to repentance (Matthew 4:17) and submission (cf. Matthew 11:28-30). The only ones that we know that are "His people" are the ones who "bear fruit in keeping with repentance." To tell some random person that Jesus died for them may well produce false converts.

[@6williamson]

very nice presentation. A flow chart of protestant sects and how many Tulips they hold who help us know what to expect when meeting folks, thx

[@jm505]

I wish I had had such a diagram when I first began exploring Christianity. It’s so confusing, and some protestant churches mask their Calvinist beliefs.

[@johnsmit5999]

God provided manna for all of the children of Israel, not just those who chose to believe in Him.

[@SubmittingToGod]

Calvin seemed to be a proponent of hypothetical universalism which is the idea that God died for everyone’s sins, but the atonement is only efficient for the elect

[@graydomn]

It is also important not to confuse "Perseverance of the Saints" with "Once Saved, Always Saved." They are radically different doctrines and OSAS is very pernicious.

[@saleemwrightpst]

I always wonder why Calvanists do evangelism or missions at all. If God has unchangeably determined who will and won’t be saved, then why evangelize the lost?

[@TheCounselofTrent]

Interesting question to pose!

[@ServusChristi777]

Because we don't know who is of the elect, and our evangelisation may be part of God's plan of salvation for many.

[@saleemwrightpst]

@@ServusChristi777 Yet, God does know. So why would God allow you to offer salvation to people who cannot be saved? Is that not misleading?

[@SugoiEnglish1]

Who cares if we can use that statement or not? You share the good news which is there is a provision for your sin! If you would trust in Jesus' your sins are forgiven and you are no longer enemies with God. What's the issue? It is not necessary to proclaim that Christ died for you in a way that attempts to coerce the lost on the basis that they owe Jesus something!

[@shan3671]

I don’t consider myself a Calvinist, but a lot of my favorite preachers are. Let me see if I can explain why they believe this way. It’s all based on the Omniscience of God. God has known since the beginning from time who would be saved. That doesn’t necessarily mean that you don’t have any free will. Think of it this way: If God can see the entirety of time, and He knows that Bob will reject Him, then Bob’s fate is really sealed from the moment of his birth. It’s like, God knows everything that’s going to happen tomorrow, therefore, tomorrow cannot happen any differently than the way God already knows it will happen. But that still doesn’t mean I won’t make decisions tomorrow.

[@lsvids595]

Man there’s always been division in church huh. It’s sad to see when we lose sight of what means most.

[@jareddrake8616]

Even though the death of Christ is powerful enough to save the entire world we who read scripture know it's (Limited) to those who believe

[@shanemccausland958]

I was caught up in calvinism for a few years. Mostly James White and Jeff Durban but I didnt go to church just watched youtube videos. I dont know why it just appealed to me, but that thing called logic forced me to look at the other side of the coin, if its monergism in salvation its monergism in damnation no matter how you spin it, and that destroys Gods love. Still struggle with catholics you can lose your salvation stuff. I dont think you practically can because if you are really a born again believer you are always going to want to come back/confess/whatever and you would die in a state of grace.

[@alist755]

4 point Calvinism is for those Calvinists who desire to let scripture speak for itself but don't desire to remain consistent (i.e., the Atonement is unlimited, but God still only saves some)...that still comes with a truck of issues.

[@Neville.Ndero8]

I am not a catholic but i want to watch the debate with james white. Whats this guy's name so search?

[@iangoodman4633]

Yes we can. We just can't say "your sins are covered by his death" to everyone. And neither should you

[@spurcalluth6300]

13:20, false, world doesn't always mean everyone, every Christian and non-Christian. "I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours." John 17:9 So is Jesus not praying for any human being at all?

[@fumples9033]

He's praying for the desciples

[@spurcalluth6300]

@@fumples9033, correct, which means that world doesn't always mean every single individual. Trent either doesn't understand or isn't aware that world doesn't always mean everyone on the planet, because here it implicitly excludes the disciples.

[@deusvult8340]

@@spurcalluth6300 doesn’t mean world isn’t every Christian and non-Christian. Jesus even distinguishes between the Christians(supposedly) and the world. So yeah, world still means everyone, it just says Jesus does not pray for them

[@spurcalluth6300]

@@deusvult8340, I see what you mean, and what you mean is just factually wrong. If Jesus says "I am praying for no individual at all (not praying for the world) but I am praying for these individuals (the disciples)" then either Jesus is insane, stupid, or a liar. He isn't any of those things, so you are just dead wrong.

[@deusvult8340]

@@spurcalluth6300 The text also doesn’t specify if it is in regards to salvation, for all we know, he could just be talking about the great commission, and even so, he is praying for the disciples, so are they the only ones that are saved?

[@titounoundici]

The more I learn about calvinism, the more I am horrified and shocked seeing how close to islam it is. Much more if I think how close Calvin and Mohamed were: both cruel, both fixed about sin, both threatening hell out of the smallest and meaningless thing, both theologically...wrong.

[@friendly_user1233]

The part about praying for all people around the 9 minute mark is too funny!

[@jonfeuerborn5859]

Former Fundamentalist 5-point Calvinist Christian here to say that these arguments over limited atonement and myriad other doctrinal disagreements are destined only to be perpetual stalemates. Why? Because the Bible clearly teaches both. As counterpoints to every verse you've treated here that lend themselves favorably to unlimited atonement, there are (likely) more that readily support limited atonement. As I've thought about these endless debates, I came to believe that the real problem is not just disagreement over how to interpret the Bible, but with the Bible itself. Verses like the ones you cited and the limited atonement verses are irreconcilable. If I were to return to the faith, I still believe that the Calvinist position is more reasonable. There's too much Biblical evidence to dismiss it (which is how John Calvin arrived at this thinking in the first place), and theologically speaking, it makes much more sense. It undermines God's sovereignty to suggest that he isn't in control of such matters, as evidenced by various statements wherein the Bible speaks of Him as the Ruler of men's hearts and the Governor of mankind's affairs. It also should be noted that it seems very much as though limited atonement is the more reasonable perspective, because the alternative to limiting the scope of atonement is to limit the efficacy of it. If Christ died for the elect, His atonement was 100% effective. If rather He died for all in the same way, then at least for some, He died in vain. Most Calvinists articulate with greater refinement still--the claim being that Christ died for all in the sense that it was to the elect for salvation and to those passed over for condemnation. Anyway, I don't really have a dog in the fight at this time as one who possesses no firm belief about Christianity at this time. My concern is simply for the rather stunted treatment you've given to the subject. I have to wonder, despite the consideration you must've afforded to the topic, if you've ever looked very closely at the Calvinist perspective to gain an appreciation of it.

[@noshmuller]

Catholicism: Jesus almost saved you. You just have to do the rest.

[@TheFinalJigsaw]

Yes Jesus died for the elect only

[@TheFinalJigsaw]

God’s hatred for the reprobate is all over scripture

[@dtphenom]

How can you know that you are elected?

[@dirtysink373]

I went from Calvinist all the way to Catholic recently. Guess I was predestined to :D :D

[@LeoRegum]

The Apostles didn't evangelize by telling people 'God loves you and Jesus died for your sins', so if you desire to follow their pattern, it is a bit of a moot point. Calvinists _could_ say e.g. with Peter in Acts 2 'Jesus will be your Saviour if you will repent and be baptized'.

[@davido3026]

Calvin's inquisition just burned protestant Michael Servetus at the stake for contradicting the divine teacher!!! Kreutz and many women followed suit, condemned with them!!

[@urawesome4670]

Jesus did not die for Simon in Acts 8. Jesus died for many; “for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.” ‭‭Matthew‬ ‭26:28‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

[@danielz.7346]

You're reading an implication into the passage that doesn't exist in the Greek, which literally says that Jesus’ blood is poured out “for the many”. (In contemporary English, "for the masses" would probably be more appropriate.) The following article may help with some of your questions: shamelesspopery.com/did-christ-die-for-all/

[@urawesome4670]

@@danielz.7346 When I looked into the Greek concordance, the word suggested for Strongs 4183 makes no mention of “masses” like you are suggesting. biblehub.com/greek/4183.htm What Greek concordance/dictionary are you using? Is suggests “much” and “many” when I looked it up. When I looked at the article, I see no reference to what Greek concordance nor dictionary they are getting this from. The Greek does not seem to allow what you are suggesting “masses”. You can’t just change the text to say what you want it to say.

[@iparipaitegianiparipaitegi4643]

UR Awesome. That’s the problem with the protestants. Their Idol is a book. The Bible. They spend their time arguing about how to interpret the bible. Isn’t it strange that neither Moses nor Jesus never ever wrote a book. The New Testament was written by the Catholic Church. It’s the Catholic Church which determined the canon (list) of the Bible. It’s the Catholic Church which has given authority to the Bible (otherwise why following that book. There are thousands, millions books about God). So instead of founding your faith upon your personal interpretation of the New Testament, why not asking its author (the Catholic Church) what does it mean?

[@christsavesreadromans1096]

John 3:16 says he sent his Son in the world for ALL. πᾶς (pas) means entire/all/everyone/whole. There is no mental gymnastics that you can use to get around this. Also we have the verses that say it’s God’s will for everyone to be saved. We know not everyone is saved. So it’s either a contradiction or God allows people to CHOOSE to follow Him or CHOOSE to reject Him. Now stop coping and join the Catholic Church.

[@iqgustavo]

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:03 😇 God loves every person and desires their salvation for eternity. 01:10 🤔 The Calvinist doctrine of limited atonement challenges the idea that God desires everyone's salvation. 02:05 🌸 Calvinism's five points: TULIP - Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, Perseverance of the saints. 03:00 ⚖️ Calvinism asserts salvation is 100% God's work, 0% human effort, leading to the notion of limited atonement. 04:39 🤝 Not all Calvinists embrace limited atonement; some say Jesus died for all but not all will go to heaven. 06:00 📖 Calvinists interpret biblical passages as hypothetical warnings rather than literal calls for salvation and perseverance. 07:24 🌍 Calvinists assert that God may love all people but doesn't necessarily want all to be saved. 08:48 🙏 First Timothy 2:1-4 indicates that God desires all men to be saved, which challenges limited atonement. 11:07 🌟 A discussion on the interpretation of "all kinds of men" in First Timothy 2:4. 12:54 🌏 First John 2:2 suggests that Christ is the expiation for the sins of the whole world. 14:20 🕊️ The verses mentioning Jesus dying for "many" and for "all" aren't mutually exclusive. 16:51 🔑 God is the savior of all, and this does not contradict the concept of free will and cooperation with God's grace.

[@johnrowland9570]

As a calvinest I can say 'God loves people like you and gave his Son to die for people like you' The speaker needs to read Ps 5:5

[@afieds6845]

It’s says here your talk has 1 comment but actually there are loads of comments. Thanks for your research on this topic

[@rushthezeppelin]

Comments section sometimes takes a bit to update

[@chrishiles8524]

@trenthorn Is this belief system still widely believed? Are you cherry picking extreme examples (quotes/proponents) of the doctrine to prove a point?

[@JonineBlackshear]

Yep- walked out of a church that taught all this five years ago. The entire NorthEastern area of Arkansas believes this.

[@cameronbond7745]

I guess it's a good thing that the book of acts did not teach us to preach. Saying to strangers, "Jesus died for you". But rather "repent and believe the gospel." Any instance of "Jesus died for you" or "us" is only uttered in the epistles, which are addressed to What are understood to be regenerate believers And any argument that the apostles using such language discredit the doctrine becuase they are making blanket statements regarding the salvation of an entire congregation Is debunked by the fact That the apostles Never claim to observe that Anyone amidst said congregations is not in Christ. Unless of course, they witnessed overt denial of Christ Or apostasy that is seen before the face of everyone present at said church This being said no effort of Christ. On the cross or in our father to decree Such things to come to pass was wasted And any accusation of apostasy Would remain holstered until our father was. Pleased to bring to the light the behavior of such a one And thus the explanation of the blanket statements found in the epistles, saying things like "Jesus died for: you, us ,And or for all " ( With consideration for the fact that these letters are addressed to believers

[@suganemmenaul]

Even the bible did not say Jesus died for individuals. There is not even one scripture says that. Then how can someone says to individual sinner that Jesus died for you?

[@KristiLEvans1]

Yes, but I doubt John Calvin pulled doctrinal support from the “Odes of Solomon” or Protoevangelium of James.

[@agentjs09]

How would you respond to verses that Calvinists use to defend their doctrines? For example, Romans 9:20-24 really seems to support the idea of limited atonement, and I hear John 10:28 used a lot in the defense of perseverance of the saints. I am not a Calvinists, and I agree the scripture you use is very strong against Calvinism. However, those verses, especially the one from Romans, I find kind of challenging.

[@fumples9033]

Romans 9:20-24 is about a Jewish man who believed he could attain salvation through the law, so the objector in those verses isn't a syngergist or someone who believes free will and Paul is rebuking him for it, no, its quite the opposite it's Paul saying that salvation is not attained by works and the Jewish man thinks that is unjust because to him good works should inherit salvation but Paul is saying no it's by faith not works, and the Potter analogy is him saying "oh u don't like that it's through faith and not works, well ha this is what God is doing and u can't question it because its better than works" atleast that's how I read it, I'm doing a small study on Romans to try and convince people at my church that calvinisn inst true

[@happy_warrior]

You should debate Matt Slick of CARM. He attacks Catholicism on an almost daily basis and his website has all kinds of myths about the Catholic Faith. I would love to see you explain the faith to him.

[@saurondp]

Matt Slick argues strictly with polemics and passive-aggressive insults. Trent Horn would leave him a quivering mess.